Myself, had I been in Bonaparte's position as city manager, I would have taken that letter down after the no confidence vote from the city commissioners as well as Chief Lee's resignation.

~jmo~
I agree.

So either he agrees with Chief Lee's responses and doesn't care if it makes himself look bad, or he's just not doing his job well.

Chris_Texas

04-06-2012, 02:34 PM

which would hopefully prevent employee disciplinary action by a private employer to become publicized. I don't think many of us want our employers to send out a press release out about what we did at work. From what I've read it was not done intentionally by someone high up at the network, it was done by production people preparing the recording for airing. It seems rather absurd thing to focus on anyway-the actual recording was available basically everywhere so it was instantaneously noticed and thus had no impact or effect as there was no way to edit it and not have it be noticed since it was being broadcast so widely.

The point is that this feeds into a certain victimization narrative.

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 02:35 PM

The letter clearly states states that Bonaprate is providing the answers to questions from Chief Lee in response to the public seeking answers. No where does it state that Bonaparte agrees with Chief Lee's responses. Please point out the sentence that states this. TIA!

Let me ask it this way. If you were city manager, and voluntarily wrote an open letter to the public that you signed and put on the official website, would you include items that you believed to be false in it?

I would not.

Chris_Texas

04-06-2012, 02:36 PM

Maybe they ran his prints or got his cell number and used a reverse directory?
Why would it mean police hanky-panky?

BBM

It is possible or even likely that the police went back and altered their initial reports. MOO.

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 02:39 PM

BBM

It is possible or even likely that the police went back and altered their initial reports. MOO.

Is adding information altering? If they had a police report on a shooting death and they didn't know the identity of the deceased, is it unethical to go back later and add in the identity once it is known?

I don't know, is why I'm asking.

Dr.Fessel

04-06-2012, 02:40 PM

--those answers are not given by Mr. Bonaparte.

--from bonaparte's letter:

"In an effort to continue to be as responsive as possible to the public seeking information on
the incident, I have asked Chief Lee to provide answers to some of the most frequently
asked questions regarding this matter. Below are his responses."

You are absolutely right. I was paying more attention to the questions and answers and not to the part saying who they were from.

He should have used quote marks and not signed it at the bottom. He should have put his name under the part he said at the top.

Dr.Fessel

04-06-2012, 02:41 PM

Is adding information altering? If they had a police report on a shooting death and they didn't know the identity of the deceased, is it unethical to go back later and add in the identity once it is known?

I don't know, is why I'm asking. Only if they leave the original date on the actual report and don't add the date of the addition.

rbrnmw2

04-06-2012, 02:43 PM

Oh and GET THIS!

They have removed the police report too!!!

http://www.sanfordfl.gov/index.html
Quite Orwellian if you ask me IMO

Sent from my Huawei U8800-51 using Tapatalk

Allusonz

04-06-2012, 02:47 PM

I'm not questioning whether or not George received some kind of little boo boo in a scuffle. However, when you read the chronological narrative of the police report and realize the severity of his "beating" required only a few minutes of treatment before he was CLEARED for transport, I am questioning whether they rose to the level of justifiably "fearing for one's life".

Particularly when he walked into the jail less than 36 minutes after pulling the trigger, at 7:52 pm, looking fresh as a daisy.

I would urge everyone to be very careful after any blow to the head or TBI.

From personal experience after being struck in the head with an object I declined to be transported. I was conscious, alert, was not bleeding, skin was not open, and did not have a lump of any sort.

It was not till many hours later that symptoms began to present. I vaguely remember being in an ambulance and I don't recall a number of days after that

Dr.Fessel

04-06-2012, 02:53 PM

Trayvon Martin protest: Students will march for 3 days

A coalition of college students will spend the next three days marching about 40 miles between Daytona Beach and Sanford to protest the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

The group, which calls itself the Dream Defenders, said the march is a "stand against racial profiling, institutional racism and the legacy of violence that continues to plague young people of color."

I believe that's the reason GZ's attorney alluded to the 'shaken baby syndrome' scenario, in that there's not much visible evidence to the eye that there's injury, but one can die from it.

I believe it may not have been a good analogy as of course, people will jump on those words, 'shaken baby syndrome,' and not pay attention to what he means by it.

JMHO
fran

gator

04-06-2012, 02:58 PM

Can someone please help me understand this whole "under the law, you don't need to be injured to fear for your life" thing? At what point would a reasonable person think that GZ shooting TM is justified?

Opponent is unarmed and has not touched you – not reasonable
If you think your opponent has a gun because of preconceived notions you have about people like him, but you haven’t actually seen a weapon – not reasonable
He says something straight out of a cheesy movie like, “You’re going to die tonight.” – not reasonable
Someone jumps you from behind - ?
Someone punches you in the face - ?
Someone is on top of you, struggling for the gun that you pulled on him - ?

I know that some people are going to say that killing someone who initiated the fight and is beating your head into the ground is reasonable, but the question I have for those people is: do you really think Trayvon was wailing like his life was ending while beating GZ nearly to death (and yes, I think it was Trayvon screaming, supported by the analysis of the two audio experts)?

JMO.

HiHater

04-06-2012, 02:59 PM

Is adding information altering? If they had a police report on a shooting death and they didn't know the identity of the deceased, is it unethical to go back later and add in the identity once it is known?

I don't know, is why I'm asking.

I think it's unethical. That info could be added to a follow up or supplemental report.

Allusonz

04-06-2012, 03:06 PM

I don't think any level of "enhancement" to that video will ever allow it rise to the level of acceptance with a jury that the UNENHANCED image of Tracy Martin's son will:

When Tracy Martin greeted the police that morning, a plainclothes detective asked him to describe his son. "He asked me what he last had on. He asked me if I had any recent pictures," Martin said.

"I showed him a recent picture in the camera and he shook his head and said, 'OK, let me go to my car and get something.'" The detective returned with a folder.

It was drizzling, and he asked Martin if they could go inside. When they were seated he pulled out a photo. It was Trayvon, dead at the scene - his eyes rolled back, a tear on his cheek, saliva coming from his mouth.

I do believe though and this is MOO that it was more apt to be a raindrop.

Maybe God's way of grieving?

Adrienne37

04-06-2012, 03:07 PM

Well, I guess we can drop the speculation about whether or not Trayvon was at the 7-11 on the night of his murder...

Georgia Students Gather In Sanford For Trayvon Martin

A corporate spokeswoman for 7-Eleven said on Thursday they have a video secured at corporate headquarters showing Martin the night he was killed.
An executive with 7-Eleven viewed the tape and can confirm: "he observed an African American male in a hoodie purchase Skittles and an iced tea between 6 and 6:30 that evening."

I do believe though and this is MOO that it was more apt to be a raindrop.

Maybe God's way of grieving?

I do not believe it's up to us to decide if it is a teardrop or a raindrop, the whole point of the post is to show how callous and unconcerned the Sanford Police Dept treated the father of a murder victim by showing him a picture of his child laying face down in the grass after he was murdered. To Tracy Martin that represented a tear drop and I do not believe it should be up to anyone to decipher or interpret how Mr. Martin felt at that moment to see his beloved son lying face down with a bullet through him.

~jmo~

CathyinTexas

04-06-2012, 03:10 PM

The video was very grainy. What they ended up with, in the enhancement, IMHO, is what it would have looked like if you were standing behind him looking at it in person with your eyes. I don't believe the enhancement was intended to make the injuries appear worse, but rather appear correct.

I can't help but have my suspicions about the enhanced photo because I know pictures can be photo shopped and made to look like anything. I am not saying it was photo shopped to make it look like GZ's injuries are worse, but just that I have some doubt.

Well, I guess we can drop the speculation about whether or not Trayvon was at the 7-11 on the night of his murder...

Georgia Students Gather In Sanford For Trayvon Martin

A corporate spokeswoman for 7-Eleven said on Thursday they have a video secured at corporate headquarters showing Martin the night he was killed.
An executive with 7-Eleven viewed the tape and can confirm: "he observed an African American male in a hoodie purchase Skittles and an iced tea between 6 and 6:30 that evening."

Thanks. It's interesting that the videotape doesn't have a time stamp that allows him to be more accurate about when Trayvon was there.

At a minimum, it took him 45 minutes to get back into the complex, or at any rate, 45 minutes (minimum) after purchasing the items he was still outside in the complex. Which leads to a question. What was he doing with that time? He wasn't going to the store and coming back, he was doing something else, likely innocent, but whatever it was is likely the reason he appeared suspicious to GZ.

Nova

04-06-2012, 03:15 PM

Thank you Allusonz.

I believe that's the reason GZ's attorney alluded to the 'shaken baby syndrome' scenario, in that there's not much visible evidence to the eye that there's injury, but one can die from it.

I believe it may not have been a good analogy as of course, people will jump on those words, 'shaken baby syndrome,' and not pay attention to what he means by it.

JMHO
fran

It may turn out to be the perfect analogy, Fran. Because after we've debated it for a few weeks, we will have forgotten there is no proof it ever happened in the first place.

Dr.Fessel

04-06-2012, 03:15 PM

I know many would would love to believe that this was a teardrop.

I do believe though and this is MOO that it was more apt to be a raindrop.

Maybe God's way of grieving?

BBM

I don't understand, why would anyone love to believe that?

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 03:15 PM

I can't help but have my suspicions about the enhanced photo because I know pictures can be photo shopped and made to look like anything. I am not saying it was photo shopped to make it look like GZ's injuries are worse, but just that I have some doubt.

If I saw that enhancement on a blog, or a news website that was supportive of GZ from the beginning I'd agree. But in airing that enhancement, CNN was basically going against the flavor and slant of their other coverage in this case.

Nova

04-06-2012, 03:19 PM

Can someone please help me understand this whole "under the law, you don't need to be injured to fear for your life" thing? At what point would a reasonable person think that GZ shooting TM is justified?

Opponent is unarmed and has not touched you – not reasonable
If you think your opponent has a gun because of preconceived notions you have about people like him, but you haven’t actually seen a weapon – not reasonable
He says something straight out of a cheesy movie like, “You’re going to die tonight.” – not reasonable
Someone jumps you from behind - ?
Someone punches you in the face - ?
Someone is on top of you, struggling for the gun that you pulled on him - ?

I know that some people are going to say that killing someone who initiated the fight and is beating your head into the ground is reasonable, but the question I have for those people is: do you really think Trayvon was wailing like his life was ending while beating GZ nearly to death (and yes, I think it was Trayvon screaming, supported by the analysis of the two audio experts)?

JMO.

This is why I was saying several threads ago that it seems two people might each be simultaneously justified under SYG.

If GZ pulled a gun on TM, surely TM had a reasonable fear for his life. But if TM panicked and, while trying to get the gun away, pounded GZ's head into the ground, then apparently GZ also had a reasonable fear under SYG.

Now some will say GZ lost his SYG rights when he pulled out his gun, but we don't know what caused him to do that (assuming he did), do we?

Bad law.

Nova

04-06-2012, 03:21 PM

I do not believe it's up to us to decide if it is a teardrop or a raindrop, the whole point of the post is to show how callous and unconcerned the Sanford Police Dept treated the father of a murder victim by showing him a picture of his child laying face down in the grass after he was murdered. To Tracy Martin that represented a tear drop and I do not believe it should be up to anyone to decipher or interpret how Mr. Martin felt at that moment to see his beloved son lying face down with a bullet through him.

~jmo~

I understand that's a terrible position in which to place any parent, but how do you want LE to identify dead bodies, if not by showing pictures to next of kin?

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 03:23 PM

I think it's unethical. That info could be added to a follow up or supplemental report.

I'm still ruminating on this. It's not like he went back and changed an observation (for example, stating an officer noticed a suspect's limp when that in fact wasn't noticed until days later). I don't think adding the deceased's identity to this changes anything - it would be like adding an address, or phone number, or cop's badge number, or other information pertinent to the case that wouldn't change over time, but had not been in the report because it wasn't known at the time. The initial police report of a shooting that left off the identity of the deceased's identity is incomplete, and not the best recordkeeping practice, IMHO if they learn the identity and don't add it for clarity.

I don't see how filling in one of the blanks once the answer becomes known falsifies the report. Or even in any way looks suspicious. It makes it a more accurate, useful document. Trayvon's identity didn't change between 3:07 a.m. and whenever they added his identity to the report.

Nova

04-06-2012, 03:24 PM

Thanks. It's interesting that the videotape doesn't have a time stamp that allows him to be more accurate about when Trayvon was there.

At a minimum, it took him 45 minutes to get back into the complex, or at any rate, 45 minutes (minimum) after purchasing the items he was still outside in the complex. Which leads to a question. What was he doing with that time? He wasn't going to the store and coming back, he was doing something else, likely innocent, but whatever it was is likely the reason he appeared suspicious to GZ.

1. Talking on the phone to his girlfriend.

2. Waiting for the rain to let up.

Which of these activities "appeared suspicious to GZ"?

Adrienne37

04-06-2012, 03:24 PM

Thanks. It's interesting that the videotape doesn't have a time stamp that allows him to be more accurate about when Trayvon was there.

At a minimum, it took him 45 minutes to get back into the complex, or at any rate, 45 minutes (minimum) after purchasing the items he was still outside in the complex. Which leads to a question. What was he doing with that time? He wasn't going to the store and coming back, he was doing something else, likely innocent, but whatever it was is likely the reason he appeared suspicious to GZ.

The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.

I also became aware of the privilege of being white, straight, middle class, and suburban. I had received the benefit of the doubt from police and other authorities. I could talk my way out of a situation with lies that were believed. When parties in the suburbs got busted, we were told to go home and parents were called. A few miles away, we would have been arrested in paddy wagon

[...]

I am reminded of an incident fifteen years ago when we were moving our first office at Public Allies, and two of the women I worked with, both African American Howard University graduates in sweats, decided to treat themselves to a nice lunch. They kept waiting to be seated and were being treated rudely and when they complained were told to take their attitude back to the ghetto. They weren't from the "ghetto." I learned that one of the privileges of being white is that I can wear whatever I want and people don't assume I'm a problem. They don't follow me in the mall. They wouldn't even arrest me when they should have.

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 03:29 PM

1. Talking on the phone to his girlfriend.

2. Waiting for the rain to let up.

Which of these activities "appeared suspicious to GZ"?

I don't know. The initial belief that he walked to the store, and then walked right back - something that would look not suspicious- may not be accurate. He may have been kind of slowly exploring the place (not a crime) or standing in one area and pacing back and forth (not a crime) or doing something else that looked more suspicious than someone walking in a purposeful way.

This whole thing was a horrible misunderstanding, and the more we learn about what led to the misunderstanding, the better. And so when you find out that 45 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes after leaving the 7-11, Trayvon was still not home you have to wonder what he was doing besides walking to the condo unit.

Not that whatever he was doing was criminal. The point is, did it look more criminal than a purposeful walk.

BTW, people don't normally "wait for the rain to let up" while they're standing in the rain. They work to get back home if the rain is bothering them.

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 03:34 PM

The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.

~jmo~

If you re-read it, it doesn't say he was inside the store from 6 - 6:30. It says he purchased the items between 6 and 6:30. Meaning, he could have purchased them at 6.

It is kind of unclear, though.

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 03:35 PM

The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.

~jmo~

Since we don't know what Trayvon was doing that GZ characterized as "suspicious", I think it's open to thinking about what it could have been.

No one is saying Trayvon was committing a crime. But rather, what did he appear like that evening?

Adrienne37

04-06-2012, 03:38 PM

If you re-read it, it doesn't say he was inside the store from 6 - 6:30. It says he purchased the items between 6 and 6:30. Meaning, he could have purchased them at 6.

It is kind of unclear, though.

This is what I said. No where in my post did I say anything about him being in the store for 30 minutes.

The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.

~jmo~

Peliman

04-06-2012, 03:39 PM

Can someone please help me understand this whole "under the law, you don't need to be injured to fear for your life" thing? At what point would a reasonable person think that GZ shooting TM is justified?

Opponent is unarmed and has not touched you – not reasonable
If you think your opponent has a gun because of preconceived notions you have about people like him, but you haven’t actually seen a weapon – not reasonable
He says something straight out of a cheesy movie like, “You’re going to die tonight.” – not reasonable
Someone jumps you from behind - ?
Someone punches you in the face - ?
Someone is on top of you, struggling for the gun that you pulled on him - ?

I know that some people are going to say that killing someone who initiated the fight and is beating your head into the ground is reasonable, but the question I have for those people is: do you really think Trayvon was wailing like his life was ending while beating GZ nearly to death (and yes, I think it was Trayvon screaming, supported by the analysis of the two audio experts)?

JMO.

I don't know the answer to your question but while you have two audio experts GZ has two eyewitnesses he was on the bottom. Here's from a state of Fla. licensing web site.

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

Nova

04-06-2012, 03:39 PM

I don't know. The initial belief that he walked to the store, and then walked right back - something that would look not suspicious- may not be accurate. He may have been kind of slowly exploring the place (not a crime) or standing in one area and pacing back and forth (not a crime) or doing something else that looked more suspicious than someone walking in a purposeful way.

This whole thing was a horrible misunderstanding, and the more we learn about what led to the misunderstanding, the better. And so when you find out that 45 minutes to an hour and 15 minutes after leaving the 7-11, Trayvon was still not home you have to wonder what he was doing besides walking to the condo unit.

Not that whatever he was doing was criminal. The point is, did it look more criminal than a purposeful walk.

BTW, people don't normally "wait for the rain to let up" while they're standing in the rain. They work to get back home if the rain is bothering them.

I grew up in Florida and lived there until I was 23. I am well aware of how quickly tropical downpours come and go. No, of course one doesn't stand in the rain, but one might well stand under an awning for 15 or 20 minutes, trusting that the worst of the rain will pass before long. I have done so myself countless times, including when I was TM's age.

I have never assumed that GZ set out to stalk and kill a black person that night, so I don't have much reason to imagine an alternate reason why he found TM suspicious.

Nova

04-06-2012, 03:43 PM

I don't know the answer to your question but while you have two audio experts GZ has two eyewitnesses he was on the bottom. Here's from a state of Fla. licensing web site.

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

Am I the only one who is struck by how carefully GZ's story eventually gets around to fulfilling the criteria listed above. I have to wonder if he was coached.

Dr.Fessel

04-06-2012, 03:43 PM

I'm still ruminating on this. It's not like he went back and changed an observation (for example, stating an officer noticed a suspect's limp when that in fact wasn't noticed until days later). I don't think adding the deceased's identity to this changes anything - it would be like adding an address, or phone number, or cop's badge number, or other information pertinent to the case that wouldn't change over time, but had not been in the report because it wasn't known at the time. The initial police report of a shooting that left off the identity of the deceased's identity is incomplete, and not the best recordkeeping practice, IMHO if they learn the identity and don't add it for clarity.

I don't see how filling in one of the blanks once the answer becomes known falsifies the report. Or even in any way looks suspicious. It makes it a more accurate, useful document. Trayvon's identity didn't change between 3:07 a.m. and whenever they added his identity to the report.

It is against the law. You can not create a report and date it then add information to it at a later date without dating the addition.

It is a historical document. People looking at it would say well they knew the ID of the person at 3:09 which would not be true.

grandmaj

04-06-2012, 03:45 PM

I understand that's a terrible position in which to place any parent, but how do you want LE to identify dead bodies, if not by showing pictures to next of kin?

Generally you don't see crime scene photos. You either go to the ME's office and identify in person, or they take a sterile picture of the body in the morgue. That wasn't this department's best procedural move IMO.

ScubaTwinn

04-06-2012, 03:48 PM

It is against the law. You can not create a report and date it then add information to it at a later date without dating the addition.

It is a historical document. People looking at it would say well they knew the ID of the person at 3:09 which would not be true.

I agree. Any document that is modified should indicate how it was modified and when. I work for a government agency and they would have a cow if we just went back to a document and added something without a revision of that document being made. But then again, we're talking about the SPD.

Allusonz

04-06-2012, 03:48 PM

I do not believe it's up to us to decide if it is a teardrop or a raindrop, the whole point of the post is to show how callous and unconcerned the Sanford Police Dept treated the father of a murder victim by showing him a picture of his child laying face down in the grass after he was murdered. To Tracy Martin that represented a tear drop and I do not believe it should be up to anyone to decipher or interpret how Mr. Martin felt at that moment to see his beloved son lying face down with a bullet through him.

~jmo~

I must apologize. I think the way i worded this post was wrong.

I should of explained it better. This is a tragedy and inside many of us are broken up and tears of grief have been shed.

If there was though moisture on TM's face that appeared to be a teardrop I am more apt to believe that it was a raindrop.

No one wants to see things like this happens there are never any winners.

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 03:50 PM

It is against the law. You can not create a report and date it then add information to it at a later date without dating the addition.

It is a historical document. People looking at it would say well they knew the ID of the person at 3:09 which would not be true.

If you didn't know the spelling of a fellow officer, or the address where you were (because it wasn't clearly marked, etc.) could you go back in and add those without updating the date?

I'm not trying to be challenging - but do you know for a fact that an officer can't go back and fill in factual information (that isn't subject to interpretation, like Trayvon's ID)?

Reason I ask is, it changes nothing. It seems hard to believe a cop would violate clear protocol to add something that doesn't affect anything. It's not like he's adding information that would make his behavior at the scene appear better, or make it appear he had good reason to react a certain way, or make the suspect look guiltier, etc.

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 03:54 PM

I agree. Any document that is modified should indicate how it was modified and when. I work for a government agency and they would have a cow if we just went back to a document and added something without a revision of that document being made. But then again, we're talking about the SPD.

In medical reports, you can go back in and add something that you didn't know at the time, that is a matter of fact and doesn't affect or influence the medical treatment. For example, a patient's last name, gender, etc. You can't add something that would be very pertinent - for example, another drug the patient was on when receiving a medication. You'd have to note when that info was added, after the initial creation of the report. If you actually CHANGE something in a medical report you have to draw a single line through the error, write the correct information and write "error" next to it. You can't obliterate or erase information.

But you could certainly add in a name of the patient once you realize it's not on the form. Is that not true of a police report? I would think that would be about the same as adding a "case number" on the form after the case is actually opened. You can do that, can't you, without redating the police report?

Isabelle

04-06-2012, 03:56 PM

Am I the only one who is struck by how carefully GZ's story eventually gets around to fulfilling the criteria listed above. I have to wonder if he was coached.

GZ's story has certainly evolved over time with the help of his mouth pieces.

Elley Mae

04-06-2012, 03:57 PM

In medical reports, you can go back in and add something that you didn't know at the time, that is a matter of fact. For example, a patient's last name, gender, etc. If you actually CHANGE something in a medical report you have to draw a single line through the error, write the correct information and write "error" next to it. You can't obliterate or erase information.

But you could certainly add in a name of the patient once you realize it's not on the form.

I would think this is what happened, if a deceased is unknown at the time the report is written why not add the name after it's been identified. jmo

Isabelle

04-06-2012, 03:58 PM

In medical reports, you can go back in and add something that you didn't know at the time, that is a matter of fact and doesn't affect or influence the medical treatment. For example, a patient's last name, gender, etc. You can't add something that would be very pertinent - for example, another drug the patient was on when receiving a medication. You'd have to note when that info was added, after the initial creation of the report. If you actually CHANGE something in a medical report you have to draw a single line through the error, write the correct information and write "error" next to it. You can't obliterate or erase information.

But you could certainly add in a name of the patient once you realize it's not on the form. Is that not true of a police report? I would think that would be about the same as adding a "case number" on the form after the case is actually opened. You can do that, can't you, without redating the police report?

Yes, a medical document can be corrected as you have indicated, but it is absolutely imperative that the date and time that the change is made be included in the report. If this is not done, it can be considered fraudulent documentation. This from my experience as an RN for 26 years.

CathyinTexas

04-06-2012, 03:58 PM

Rut Roh, They seem to be distancing themselves from the concrete. LOL

"We're familiar with the Shaken Baby Syndrome," said Uhrig on the CBS This Morning program. "You shake a baby, the brain shakes around inside the skull. You can die when someone's pounding your head into the ground."

I guess I don't understand how this would help GZ. I doubt a jury would believe that he could have or would have even thought at the moment the struggle occurred, that TM could shake my brain till I am brain damaged. But, nevertheless, is he changing his testimony as to what he told police that night?

katydid23

04-06-2012, 03:59 PM

GZ's story has certainly evolved over time with the help of his mouth pieces.

However GZ was interviewed on tape three times with LE that night. So it doesn't really matter what his father or brother or neighbor say. The only story that will matter during the trial will be his initial version, imo.

deelytful1

04-06-2012, 03:59 PM

Am I the only one who is struck by how carefully GZ's story eventually gets around to fulfilling the criteria listed above. I have to wonder if he was coached.

I feel the same way.. seems bit by bit a fact (if u can call it that) is released to the media that seemingly sets up the SYG laws as a defense.

ThoughtFox

04-06-2012, 03:59 PM

If you didn't know the spelling of a fellow officer, or the address where you were (because it wasn't clearly marked, etc.) could you go back in and add those without updating the date?

I'm not trying to be challenging - but do you know for a fact that an officer can't go back and fill in factual information (that isn't subject to interpretation, like Trayvon's ID)?

Reason I ask is, it changes nothing. It seems hard to believe a cop would violate clear protocol to add something that doesn't affect anything. It's not like he's adding information that would make his behavior at the scene appear better, or make it appear he had good reason to react a certain way, or make the suspect look guiltier, etc.

And yet, lots of things seem to hint that police and prosecutors may have violated protocol, and there are many things about this case that no one would ever imagine would or could ever happen.

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 04:00 PM

I would think this is what happened, if a deceased is unknown at the time the report is written why not add the name after it's been identified. jmo

I totally agree. But then, I'm not a cop so maybe I'm wrong.

angelmom

04-06-2012, 04:00 PM

If you didn't know the spelling of a fellow officer, or the address where you were (because it wasn't clearly marked, etc.) could you go back in and add those without updating the date?

I'm not trying to be challenging - but do you know for a fact that an officer can't go back and fill in factual information (that isn't subject to interpretation, like Trayvon's ID)?

Reason I ask is, it changes nothing. It seems hard to believe a cop would violate clear protocol to add something that doesn't affect anything. It's not like he's adding information that would make his behavior at the scene appear better, or make it appear he had good reason to react a certain way, or make the suspect look guiltier, etc.

I don't know about police reports. All I know is that for my job, the notes are EVERYTHING and we live by the mantra that "if it isn't in the notes it didn't happen." Anytime we change anything, it is noted. In fact, I couldn't go in and change something if I wanted to. The computer would still note that I (logged in) added or updated some information on a certain date at a certain time.

It may not seem to be important when it is merely adding more information, but tracking is critical for someone to go back later and determine when the police knew this information. It creates a timeline to refer back to later, especially if there is a trial.

They should do it if only to help themselves. Trayvon's name being on that 3am police report opens them to criticism that they did not notify his family in a timely way. Does anyone really think they wait for a "decent hour" to notify a family of a dead child? But an amended report showing that Trayvon was positively identified via a photograph by his father at whatever time on the morning of 2/27 is much more accurate and gives a clearer picture of the timeline.

Whenever documents are altered without proper notation, it's a red flag that someone is either incompetent or hiding something.

Nova

04-06-2012, 04:00 PM

Generally you don't see crime scene photos. You either go to the ME's office and identify in person, or they take a sterile picture of the body in the morgue. That wasn't this department's best procedural move IMO.

Frankly, I think forcing next of kin to view the corpse of a loved one is the cruelest method of all. But maybe that's just me.

But back to the photos. How many were Tracy Martin shown? Because there are mentions above of his being shown a picture of his son laying face down in the grass. (And BTW, how could anyone identify anyone reliably from such a photo?)

And there are also references to Trayvon's tear-stained (or rain-splattered) cheek. I don't believe you could see the kid's face if he was lying face down.

So were multiple photos shown to Mr. Martin? (That seems excessive.)

Or did Trayvon die front down, but with his face to one side, revealing his profile? (If this is the case, then I understand the complaint about showing his father this picture.)

Dr.Fessel

04-06-2012, 04:02 PM

If you didn't know the spelling of a fellow officer, or the address where you were (because it wasn't clearly marked, etc.) could you go back in and add those without updating the date?

I'm not trying to be challenging - but do you know for a fact that an officer can't go back and fill in factual information (that isn't subject to interpretation, like Trayvon's ID)?

Reason I ask is, it changes nothing. It seems hard to believe a cop would violate clear protocol to add something that doesn't affect anything. It's not like he's adding information that would make his behavior at the scene appear better, or make it appear he had good reason to react a certain way, or make the suspect look guiltier, etc.

Yes he can go back in and add stuff as long as he puts the date he added it. It is that simple.

These are documents that will be used in court and someone will have to swear to them to be an accurate record. Part of that important record is the date it was made.

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 04:02 PM

Frankly, I think forcing next of kin to view the corpse of a loved one is the cruelest method of all. But maybe that's just me.

But back to the photos. How many were Tracy Martin shown? Because there are mentions above of his being shown a picture of his son laying face down in the grass. (And BTW, how could anyone identify anyone reliably from such a photo?)

And there are also references to Trayvon's tear-stained (or rain-splattered) cheek. I don't believe you could see the kid's face if he was lying face down.

So were multiple photos shown to Mr. Martin? (That seems excessive.)

Or did Trayvon die front down, but with his face to one side, revealing his profile? (If this is the case, then I understand the complaint about showing his father this picture.)

Did he ask, I wonder? Did he ask to view the photos taken at the scene? I can't imagine a cop being cruel enough to have a dad look at those photos if they hadn't asked to be allowed to.

ThoughtFox

04-06-2012, 04:05 PM

However GZ was interviewed on tape three times with LE that night. So it doesn't really matter what his father or brother or neighbor say. The only story that will matter during the trial will be his initial version, imo.
In one way you are right - the initial story is the only one that should matter.

However, in general defense attorneys are notorious for embellishing/embroidering in order to set up a defense.

Or Zimmerman could say "I had a head injury and didn't know what I was saying that night" . . . yadda . . . yadda . . . yadda . . .

At the least, a defense attorney might coach a defendent to use different language than he used in the beginning in order to spin things in a more favorable light, especially with the timeline. They might even encourage other family members to tell different versions. That helps to pollute the future jury pool and confuse this issues. :twocents:

I'm not saying any of that has actually happened, but once someone has lawyered up you are probably not going to go back to the original version until a trial starts. You are going to hear all kinds of things that should be taken with a grain of salt.

Nova

04-06-2012, 04:08 PM

Did he ask, I wonder? Did he ask to view the photos taken at the scene? I can't imagine a cop being cruel enough to have a dad look at those photos if they hadn't asked to be allowed to.

In fairness, the officer may not have meant to be cruel. He may have meant to end the father's uncertainty, calculating that viewing an unfortunate photo was less cruel than making Tracy Martin wait until a formal viewing could be arranged at the morgue.

If it were I, I'd rather see the photo than wait another hour without knowing for sure. It's not as if part of the child's head were blown off.

ThoughtFox

04-06-2012, 04:09 PM

Frankly, I think forcing next of kin to view the corpse of a loved one is the cruelest method of all. But maybe that's just me.

Corpses have been misidentified by pictures before, so they don't take any chances with that. Death is cruel in general - I don't see much difference between showing someone a picture of their dead relative and showing them the actual person, except the reality might be easier to accept in the morgue. If someone is dead, the body is going to be viewed at the funeral anyway.

But back to the photos. How many were Tracy Martin shown? Because there are mentions above of his being shown a picture of his son laying face down in the grass. (And BTW, how could anyone identify anyone reliably from such a photo?)
They can't, and hence the morgue visit. The horrible thing for Mr. Martin was probably realizing with horror that Trayvon died so close to the house in a place where he expected to be safe. It's a nightmare. :(

Adrienne37

04-06-2012, 04:10 PM

In medical reports, you can go back in and add something that you didn't know at the time, that is a matter of fact and doesn't affect or influence the medical treatment. For example, a patient's last name, gender, etc. You can't add something that would be very pertinent - for example, another drug the patient was on when receiving a medication. You'd have to note when that info was added, after the initial creation of the report. If you actually CHANGE something in a medical report you have to draw a single line through the error, write the correct information and write "error" next to it. You can't obliterate or erase information.

But you could certainly add in a name of the patient once you realize it's not on the form. Is that not true of a police report? I would think that would be about the same as adding a "case number" on the form after the case is actually opened. You can do that, can't you, without redating the police report?

In a medical report, if a physician or nurse has anything to add to it, it's covered in a separate report with the word ADDENDUM added. HIPPA and JCAHO ( Joint Commission on Accreditation of Healthcare Organizations) have VERY SPECIFIC RULES regarding any changes to a medical report and if either the government (representing HIPPA) or an auditor for JCAHO comes to your hospital to review your records on a particular patient and they saw a line crossed through something that might not be correct, that hospital would be in violation and a severe penalty could be rendered. If a physician has a report that he realizes he needs to be changed, he then dictates that report with the corrections that he wants made and again it is labeled with ADDENDUM at the top.

(Let me add that while Isabelle is a nurse and is on the floor where the patient's are seen, I am the ones behind the scenes transcribing these notes from the doctor's).

~jmo~

katydid23

04-06-2012, 04:13 PM

I think both sides are muddying up the waters a bit. One of the Martin attorneys is still publicly complaining that TM was ' laying in the morgue as a John Doe for three days.'

That makes LE sound very cold and unfeeling. And yet, we also hear that they went to the father with pictures early the next morning. [ which is also described as cruel.] So why is the attorney publicly blasting them with the 3 day in the morgue complaint if he was actually identified on the morning after ?

beach

04-06-2012, 04:13 PM

Thanks Beach - And if you guys shut down for the holiday, ok by me as you folks have been overworked I'm sure.

Right now, this is on the 18th thread and I can't keep up with facts due to so many posts. I know that there is one thread that is ONLY for posting of news, and without comments. Can you let us all know if/when you separate out topical threads for this so those that want to truly sleuth on a subject can have a place to go to post and to have as a reference for subjects at a later time. I've wanted to look for a specific item, and did indeed try to search but couldn't find in this morass of postings in the 18 threads so far.

Thanks for all you mods do! Take the weekend off!

I want to address this here because I have had several PMs asking me about this, but I haven't had a chance to respond. I apologize for that, but my inbox is exploding and I do the best I can just trying to keep up. So, if you have PM'd me and I haven't replied, I sincerely apologize.

While I totally agree that we need a forum where we can separate the topics and make info easier to find, we are not even considering it at this time. At all times we have 3-4 mods on this thread to keep it from exploding into it's own online riot. lol

This is really up to you guys. When we see that posters can discuss these emotional topics in a calm, civil manner and practice a LARGE dose of tolerance toward each other, we will make it a forum. Right now, the temprament in here is such that there is simply no way we can mod multiple a bunch of hot, volatile topical threads. Simply put, it is all we can do to maintain peace on these single discussion threads.

Those of you who were around - think of the Anthony forum immediately post-verdict. It simply won't work at this time.

If things calm down, we would love to make it a forum. Right now we just can't do that. Hopefully, soon. I have faith in your guys. :)

Nova

04-06-2012, 04:14 PM

In one way you are right - the initial story is the only one that should matter.

However, in general defense attorneys are notorious for embellishing/embroidering in order to set up a defense.

Or Zimmerman could say "I had a head injury and didn't know what I was saying that night" . . . yadda . . . yadda . . . yadda . . .

At the least, a defense attorney might coach a defendent to use different language than he used in the beginning in order to spin things in a more favorable light, especially with the timeline. They might even encourage other family members to tell different versions. That helps to pollute the future jury pool and confuse this issues. :twocents:

I'm not saying any of that has actually happened, but once someone has lawyered up you are probably not going to go back to the original version until a trial starts. You are going to hear all kinds of things that should be taken with a grain of salt.

I'm sure there are unethical defense attorneys just as there are unethical DAs. But we should be clear that a defense attorney is also an officer of the court and cannot ethically coach anyone to lie.

What he or she CAN do is point out that certain ways of presenting the truth may be problematic. "I blew that sucker away," for example, may cause problems in the minds of the public and jury that "I pulled the trigger to save my life" will not, even though both may be true statements.

And, yes, a defense attorney may test the waters, so to speak, by trying out different ways of expressing an argument s/he believes to be true. I agree with those who believe "shaken baby syndrome" will fail the test: it's too apt to provoke smirking and even laughter.

Nova

04-06-2012, 04:17 PM

Corpses have been misidentified by pictures before, so they don't take any chances with that. Death is cruel in general - I don't see much difference between showing someone a picture of their dead relative and showing them the actual person, except the reality might be easier to accept in the morgue. If someone is dead, the body is going to be viewed at the funeral anyway....

Thank you, TF. Good point.

They can't, and hence the morgue visit. The horrible thing for Mr. Martin was probably realizing with horror that Trayvon died so close to the house in a place where he expected to be safe. It's a nightmare. :(

Does this mean the officer showed Mr. Martin a photo of his son face down in the grass? This seems really unnecessary to me. Appalling, even.

I'm still ruminating on this. It's not like he went back and changed an observation (for example, stating an officer noticed a suspect's limp when that in fact wasn't noticed until days later). I don't think adding the deceased's identity to this changes anything - it would be like adding an address, or phone number, or cop's badge number, or other information pertinent to the case that wouldn't change over time, but had not been in the report because it wasn't known at the time. The initial police report of a shooting that left off the identity of the deceased's identity is incomplete, and not the best recordkeeping practice, IMHO if they learn the identity and don't add it for clarity.

I don't see how filling in one of the blanks once the answer becomes known falsifies the report. Or even in any way looks suspicious. It makes it a more accurate, useful document. Trayvon's identity didn't change between 3:07 a.m. and whenever they added his identity to the report.

Whenever the Officers on the scene from the SPD got all the blanks on the report filled in, I think they got it mostly right.

I don't know the answer to your question but while you have two audio experts GZ has two eyewitnesses he was on the bottom. Here's from a state of Fla. licensing web site.

Q. When can I use my handgun to protect myself?

A. Florida law justifies use of deadly force when you are:

Trying to protect yourself or another person from death or serious bodily harm;
Trying to prevent a forcible felony, such as rape, robbery, burglary or kidnapping.
Using or displaying a handgun in any other circumstances could result in your conviction for crimes such as improper exhibition of a firearm, manslaughter, or worse.

Example of the kind of attack that will not justify defending yourself with deadly force: Two neighbors got into a fight, and one of them tried to hit the other by swinging a garden hose. The neighbor who was being attacked with the hose shot the other in the chest. The court upheld his conviction for aggravated battery with a firearm, because an attack with a garden hose is not the kind of violent assault that justifies responding with deadly force.

Q. What if someone uses threatening language to me so that I am afraid for my life or safety?

A. Verbal threats are not enough to justify the use of deadly force. There must be an overt act by the person which indicates that he immediately intends to carry out the threat. The person threatened must reasonably believe that he will be killed or suffer serious bodily harm if he does not immediately take the life of his adversary.

http://licgweb.doacs.state.fl.us/weapons/self_defense.html

What other defense does he need beside what is bolded :waitasec:

grandmaj

04-06-2012, 04:27 PM

Frankly, I think forcing next of kin to view the corpse of a loved one is the cruelest method of all. But maybe that's just me.

But back to the photos. How many were Tracy Martin shown? Because there are mentions above of his being shown a picture of his son laying face down in the grass. (And BTW, how could anyone identify anyone reliably from such a photo?)

And there are also references to Trayvon's tear-stained (or rain-splattered) cheek. I don't believe you could see the kid's face if he was lying face down.

So were multiple photos shown to Mr. Martin? (That seems excessive.)

Or did Trayvon die front down, but with his face to one side, revealing his profile? (If this is the case, then I understand the complaint about showing his father this picture.)

I don't know personally about what pictures were shown. Only what I am reading.

Procedurally you would not have to go to the morgue if things are handled delicately. . Say the officer had a picture of Trayvon(not a gory crime scene photo) and he showed it to Trayvon's father. Trayvon's father believed it was his son. So now the choices are generally to get dental records or get finger print records if there are any, and that is the way the ME would confirm the identification.

Very few cases really require the family to go to the ME's office. That is in the movies. I work with the ME's office on many cases. It is done by pictures and dental records to confirm or finger prints. I"ve never had a family tell me LE showed them crime scene pictures.

rotterdam

04-06-2012, 04:30 PM

Well, I guess we can drop the speculation about whether or not Trayvon was at the 7-11 on the night of his murder...

Georgia Students Gather In Sanford For Trayvon Martin

A corporate spokeswoman for 7-Eleven said on Thursday they have a video secured at corporate headquarters showing Martin the night he was killed.
An executive with 7-Eleven viewed the tape and can confirm: "he observed an African American male in a hoodie purchase Skittles and an iced tea between 6 and 6:30 that evening."

BBM. Tks for that post. That also proves that Tray paid for it:maddening:
Not that I ever doubted that anyway.

Peliman

04-06-2012, 04:35 PM

What other defense does he need beside what is bolded :waitasec:

None that I'm aware of but since information has been leaked slowly and I don't know the total content of witness statements or what the investigation or forensics reveal, I'm not willing to commit to his innocence yet either.

So far this case has been blown way out of proportion by reckless news reporting and conclusion jumping. JMO

ThoughtFox

04-06-2012, 04:35 PM

'm sure there are unethical defense attorneys just as there are unethical DAs. But we should be clear that a defense attorney is also an officer of the court and cannot ethically coach anyone to lie.

What he or she CAN do is point out that certain ways of presenting the truth may be problematic. "I blew that sucker away," for example, may cause problems in the minds of the public and jury that "I pulled the trigger to save my life" will not, even though both may be true statements.

I never said Zimmerman's attorney would coach him to lie. Besides, the attorney isn't there to judge his story one way or another, but to help him put forth the most appealing version of the story (if that's possible).

I said the att. might teach him to spin something differently from the original story, so I think we agree on that point.

Does this mean the officer showed Mr. Martin a photo of his son face down in the grass? This seems really unnecessary to me. Appalling, even.

I have no idea. None of us have actually seen the crime scene photos, have we?

Elley Mae

04-06-2012, 04:41 PM

None that I'm aware of but since information has been leaked slowly and I don't know the total content of witness statements or what the investigation or forensics reveal, I'm not willing to commit to his innocence yet either.

So far this case has been blown way out of proportion by reckless news reporting and conclusion jumping. JMO

Exactly, it is difficult to read "between the lines" sometimes. I'm thinking that if there is an arrest of GZ it will be because he was told by dispatch to not follow. Not sure he will face murder. still pondering

grandmaj

04-06-2012, 04:44 PM

Thanks. It's interesting that the videotape doesn't have a time stamp that allows him to be more accurate about when Trayvon was there.

At a minimum, it took him 45 minutes to get back into the complex, or at any rate, 45 minutes (minimum) after purchasing the items he was still outside in the complex. Which leads to a question. What was he doing with that time? He wasn't going to the store and coming back, he was doing something else, likely innocent, but whatever it was is likely the reason he appeared suspicious to GZ.

I dona't know Jeanna. Walking around is not a crime. Let me give you an example. When I go back east to visit with my daughter and grands, I often go outside and sit on a wall or walk down the street with the phone talking to my husband or work back home.

I'm an empty nester and while I enjoy every second of being with my grands, the noise and confusion and running etc., tends to wear on me after a while. My home is very quiet. So I take a nice long walk, sneak a cigg and just walk about.

Even though I'm a stranger in the neighborhood I've never been stopped or followed in the rain, or even the snow doing this.

Maybe Trayvon in that he was staying not in his own home, but visiting just felt isolated and wanted to talk to his girl on the phone and that is really all he was doing. Walking about trying to find some space away from the people he was staying with. I really can understand that. Because I'm not the type to stay in anyone else's house but my own.

Beyond Belief

04-06-2012, 04:46 PM

I don't know if this was talked about before but that last link, had a comment under it which contains a link for a slowed down version of the screaming 911 call.

Chris_Texas

04-06-2012, 04:47 PM

GZ wasn't convicted of anything either, so what's the difference ? The officer was undercover and GZ didn't know he was a cop. He thought he just another guy in a bar bothering his friend. It's not like he went out and hit an identified uniformed officer. And I read that he shoved him, which IMO isn't exactly a serious physical assault. Where is the version that describes an identified PO and GZ saying he didn't care who he was ?

There is irony hidden in this story somewhere....

:waitasec:

Nova

04-06-2012, 04:47 PM

I never said Zimmerman's attorney would coach him to lie. Besides, the attorney isn't there to judge his story one way or another, but to help him put forth the most appealing version of the story (if that's possible).

I said the att. might teach him to spin something differently from the original story, so I think we agree on that point....

BBM: the verb "spin" is now sometimes used to mean alter to the point of untruth (see Bill O'Reilly's use of the word), so I was offering a clarification, that's all. You are right that we agree here. I'm sorry if I seemed to be quarreling with you.

ScubaTwinn

04-06-2012, 05:00 PM

In medical reports, you can go back in and add something that you didn't know at the time, that is a matter of fact and doesn't affect or influence the medical treatment. For example, a patient's last name, gender, etc. You can't add something that would be very pertinent - for example, another drug the patient was on when receiving a medication. You'd have to note when that info was added, after the initial creation of the report. If you actually CHANGE something in a medical report you have to draw a single line through the error, write the correct information and write "error" next to it. You can't obliterate or erase information.

But you could certainly add in a name of the patient once you realize it's not on the form. Is that not true of a police report? I would think that would be about the same as adding a "case number" on the form after the case is actually opened. You can do that, can't you, without redating the police report?

It looks like Isabelle responded about the medical reports because I can't answer that question for you. The few times I've dealt with the police (being rear ended in the car, home burglarized), they handed me a card with a case number already on it that they wrote out in front of me. I don't know if they can go back and add a number without redating it.

Steft50

04-06-2012, 05:06 PM

I never said Zimmerman's attorney would coach him to lie. Besides, the attorney isn't there to judge his story one way or another, but to help him put forth the most appealing version of the story (if that's possible).

I said the att. might teach him to spin something differently from the original story, so I think we agree on that point.

I have no idea. None of us have actually seen the crime scene photos, have we?

Just a thought and question here. Would there be any crime scene photos with Trayvon face down or on his belly? Wasn't he turned over to his back for the police and emt's to perform CPR?

Chris_Texas

04-06-2012, 05:08 PM

Is adding information altering? If they had a police report on a shooting death and they didn't know the identity of the deceased, is it unethical to go back later and add in the identity once it is known?

I don't know, is why I'm asking.

I do not know about illegal but it certainly calls the report into question. I can only say this: in the department I worked for, I was never once asked to alter a submitted report once it had been accepted, and when I was eventually a supervisor myself, it never once occured to me to ask someone else to do so. I cannot imagine it even coming up, other than in some effort to rewrite history or something. New information comes to light every day during an investigation. That follow up investigation and information has it's own report, and one from every single officer involved.

I can understand relabeling a case file, or ammending a cover letter or something, but actually altering a report?

IN MY OPINION ONLY!

(Note: I said "once accepted." By this I mean that, despite their training, it is not uncommon to see new officers attempt to turn in reports that are complete trash. It is a supervisor's job to ensure that this doesn't happen.)

Chris_Texas

04-06-2012, 05:10 PM

Trayvon Martin protest: Students will march for 3 days

A coalition of college students will spend the next three days marching about 40 miles between Daytona Beach and Sanford to protest the shooting death of Trayvon Martin.

The group, which calls itself the Dream Defenders, said the march is a "stand against racial profiling, institutional racism and the legacy of violence that continues to plague young people of color."

I believe that's the reason GZ's attorney alluded to the 'shaken baby syndrome' scenario, in that there's not much visible evidence to the eye that there's injury, but one can die from it.

I believe it may not have been a good analogy as of course, people will jump on those words, 'shaken baby syndrome,' and not pay attention to what he means by it.

JMHO
fran

Exactly. His explanation was perfectly correct, but it wasn't a very smart thing to say.

Chris_Texas

04-06-2012, 05:13 PM

Can someone please help me understand this whole "under the law, you don't need to be injured to fear for your life" thing? At what point would a reasonable person think that GZ shooting TM is justified?

Opponent is unarmed and has not touched you – not reasonable
If you think your opponent has a gun because of preconceived notions you have about people like him, but you haven’t actually seen a weapon – not reasonable
He says something straight out of a cheesy movie like, “You’re going to die tonight.” – not reasonable
Someone jumps you from behind - ?
Someone punches you in the face - ?
Someone is on top of you, struggling for the gun that you pulled on him - ?

I know that some people are going to say that killing someone who initiated the fight and is beating your head into the ground is reasonable, but the question I have for those people is: do you really think Trayvon was wailing like his life was ending while beating GZ nearly to death (and yes, I think it was Trayvon screaming, supported by the analysis of the two audio experts)?

JMO.

Of course he wasn't wailing like that while kick GZ's fanny. In my opinion, no one was fighting at that time. That was Trayvon with a gun in his chest crying for his momma while GZ tormented him.

rotterdam

04-06-2012, 05:13 PM

This is why I was saying several threads ago that it seems two people might each be simultaneously justified under SYG.

If GZ pulled a gun on TM, surely TM had a reasonable fear for his life. But if TM panicked and, while trying to get the gun away, pounded GZ's head into the ground, then apparently GZ also had a reasonable fear under SYG.

Now some will say GZ lost his SYG rights when he pulled out his gun, but we don't know what caused him to do that (assuming he did), do we?

Bad law.

It is a horrible law in its current form. At the point where GZ left his car with a loaded gun and preyed on Tray for no good reason, he became the aggressor/provoker. And I really do not care what happened after that.
The SYG should not be a walking piece of real estate that envelops the aggressor in a mobile protective immune bubble. The SYG victimizes the (dead)victim by not giving the victim any human/civil rights and/or any due process in a court.
All IMO.

flourish

04-06-2012, 05:16 PM

I think the difference here is that Trayvon was in trouble for three things in the past:

1) writing obscene graffiti on the wall (my DD's 5th grade class is having the same problem in the boys' room right now)
2) an empty packet with marijuana residue (not a good sign but not illegal either)
3) jewelry that could not be matched to any reported theft and a screwdriver "that they felt could be used as a burglary tool."

None of those things has any bearing on the night of 2/26 because even GZ has not said that Trayvon was:

1) writing on anything or vandalizing anything
2) smoking pot or anything else
3) breaking into a house, trying doorknobs, checking windows, or anything else to indicate that he was planning to rob someone. He was "looking around." That's all. I assume GZ was also "looking around" since he saw TM.

Also, TM was not found with a weapon, jewelry or anything else that had been stolen, graffiti tools, or so much as a bobby pin to break in somewhere.

GZ has a history of violent acts, especially over people he seems to feel some authority over, like the woman at the party where he was the bouncer, or his ex. For example:

In addition, he seems to have some trouble accepting someone else's authority over him, like a police dispatcher (no, I understand it's not illegal to ignore their advice, but it's also not smart.)

And then there is the history of making a BFD out of nothing and calling police. Not to mention following the person and creating a more dangerous situation than the one he initially called about.

So when people bring up Trayvon's "history" it does reek of blaming the victim. When people bring up GZ's history it is absolutely relevant to what might have happened here. I believe that GZ called police and made a BFD out of nothing, as he had in the past; followed Trayvon, as he had others in the past; ignored the dispatcher's advice; and assaulted Trayvon as he had others in the past.

When you add in that the lead detective on the scene didn't believe GZ's story, when you add in that the funeral director said Trayvon's body showed no sign of a fight or scuffle, when you add in the lack of emergency medical treatment for GZ and the video where he appears to be just fine...it seems obvious to me that this is at least enough reason to investigate and possibly go to trial.

I am not being the judge, jury and executioner for GZ. I am not saying he is guilty (although I think that is most likely). I am saying there needs to be an investigation. I think someone needs to take this seriously. And I don't think anyone did until people started protesting and sharing on social media and making a fuss. While I agree that GZ shouldn't be arrested b/c of the outcry, I also don't think it should have taken this kind of outcry to prompt an investigation. It warranted one all by itself.

I also have to say that it makes me crazy that a 19 yo I know was taken into police custody and held in the jail over a fake ID at a bar longer than GZ was the night he admittedly shot an unarmed teenager. The city of Sanford has no one to blame for this except themselves. If they had arrested GZ that night, investigated, and then released him saying it appeared he acted in self-defense, I don't think anyone would have ever heard of either GZ or TM.

Just my :twocents:

I want to frame this post and hang it on my wall. :)

Chris_Texas

04-06-2012, 05:17 PM

Thanks. It's interesting that the videotape doesn't have a time stamp that allows him to be more accurate about when Trayvon was there.

At a minimum, it took him 45 minutes to get back into the complex, or at any rate, 45 minutes (minimum) after purchasing the items he was still outside in the complex. Which leads to a question. What was he doing with that time? He wasn't going to the store and coming back, he was doing something else, likely innocent, but whatever it was is likely the reason he appeared suspicious to GZ.

:what:

Chris_Texas

04-06-2012, 05:20 PM

I'm still ruminating on this. It's not like he went back and changed an observation (for example, stating an officer noticed a suspect's limp when that in fact wasn't noticed until days later). I don't think adding the deceased's identity to this changes anything - it would be like adding an address, or phone number, or cop's badge number, or other information pertinent to the case that wouldn't change over time, but had not been in the report because it wasn't known at the time. The initial police report of a shooting that left off the identity of the deceased's identity is incomplete, and not the best recordkeeping practice, IMHO if they learn the identity and don't add it for clarity.

I don't see how filling in one of the blanks once the answer becomes known falsifies the report. Or even in any way looks suspicious. It makes it a more accurate, useful document. Trayvon's identity didn't change between 3:07 a.m. and whenever they added his identity to the report.

What else did they change?

Neither of us know. We can speculate. And that's why you don't alter documents.

KateNY

04-06-2012, 05:33 PM

I don't know if this was talked about before but that last link, had a comment under it which contains a link for a slowed down version of the screaming 911 call.

Thanks much, I listened to that from another link that I can't find now.

Dunno if we can post the audio link, but it's in the comments under the article here
http://www.wesh.com/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/30841174/detail.html#ixzz1rHyJyZmJ

May be these ole ears, but it almost sounds like 2 shots. And it sounds as if the people making the 911 call mention shots, and make reference to a shot at 2 different times after a 'noise'

anyway, there is some sort of a loud noise, before the 2nd louder noise

but, we know GZ only fired off one shot ..

wonder what that other noise was......

Elley Mae

04-06-2012, 05:41 PM

Thanks much, I listened to that from another link that I can't find now.

Dunno if we can post the audio link, but it's in the comments under the article here
http://www.wesh.com/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/30841174/detail.html#ixzz1rHyJyZmJ

May be these ole ears, but it almost sounds like 2 shots. And it sounds as if the people making the 911 call mention shots, and make reference to a shot at 2 different times after a 'noise'

anyway, there is some sort of a loud noise, before the 2nd louder noise

but, we know GZ only fired off one shot ..

wonder what that other noise was......

echo ?

Beyond Belief

04-06-2012, 05:45 PM

Amongst the voice that seems like its saying "whoaaaa", I heard a voice speaking normal, either the guy with the gal making the call or maybe the other 911 caller who said he shouted stop at them.
The most heard voice is doing some talking well shouting of other words which a good FBI team could probably figure out what he's saying. I am not even sure if I am hearing the word. "help".

vlpate

04-06-2012, 05:45 PM

The corporate executive states Trayvon was in the store between 6-6:30 p.m. If it takes 45 minutes to walk to the store then obviously it takes 45 minutes to walk back so if he left the store at 6 p.m., he would have arrived back at the complex at 6:45. If he left the store at 6:30 p.m., it would have taken him until 7:15 p.m. to make it back. I fail to understand why anyone keeps needing to throw in the things that Trayvon "might have been" doing.

~jmo~

With all due respect, we dissected GZ's trip to Target last night for many pages. Some may not simply accept that GZ got out of his truck and gunned down an innocent young man walking with a bag of skittles. Maybe there was a reason for GZ's suspicion. Does this make the fact that GZ had a gun and should NOT have, go away? Of course not, I just want to know more about what Trayvon was doing and why he looked suspicious - maybe learn why he may have punched GZ instead of going home.

In spite of all the stories of Trayvon playing with the kids in the community, etc., no one seemed to know who he was the night he died. Was he just not that familiar with the community and got lost looking for Brandi's building?

No arrest has been made and there's a reason. I'd like to explore new information without feeling I am taking a side.

JMO

LambChop

04-06-2012, 05:47 PM

I'm still stuck on you've killed someone and a week or two later all you can say is, "I thought it would have blown over by now"

"It's just starting to sink in" to Zimmerman how big the controversy over the shooting has become, Oliver said. "Up until this point, because he was there and he knows what happened ... he has been very confident -- naively -- that this would all blow over."

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 05:50 PM

What 17-year-old would want to talk to his girlfriend in front of a 13-year-old boy? The 13-year-old would be making kissing noises and slobbering on his hand making fun of the conversations. I also believe that Trayvon wanted a little time to himself to be able to talk to his girlfriend. Sad that something so sweet and innocent could turn out like this?

octobermoon

04-06-2012, 05:54 PM

What 17-year-old would want to talk to his girlfriend in front of a 13-year-old boy? The 13-year-old would be making kissing noises and slobbering on his hand making fun of the conversations. I also believe that Trayvon wanted a little time to himself to be able to talk to his girlfriend. Sad that something so sweet and innocent could turn out like this?

Oh and then the 13 yr old would threaten to tell the whole world, or just tell as soon as he got the chance. :)

uvamerica

04-06-2012, 05:57 PM

Thanks much, I listened to that from another link that I can't find now.

Dunno if we can post the audio link, but it's in the comments under the article here
http://www.wesh.com/trayvon-martin-extended-coverage/30841174/detail.html#ixzz1rHyJyZmJ

May be these ole ears, but it almost sounds like 2 shots. And it sounds as if the people making the 911 call mention shots, and make reference to a shot at 2 different times after a 'noise'

anyway, there is some sort of a loud noise, before the 2nd louder noise

but, we know GZ only fired off one shot ..

wonder what that other noise was......

I'm no expert, but have some experience with guns (9mm) I'll try and explain what I hear, I hear the crack of the bullet leaving the chamber, and the echo that follows. The echo between the buildings could have made it sound like more shots were fired. JMO I hope this helps.

highflyer

04-06-2012, 05:57 PM

I want to frame this post and hang it on my wall. :)

Thank you for bumping that. :rocker:

Aedrys

04-06-2012, 05:59 PM

I'm still stuck on you've killed someone and a week or two later all you can say is, "I thought it would have blown over by now"

"It's just starting to sink in" to Zimmerman how big the controversy over the shooting has become, Oliver said. "Up until this point, because he was there and he knows what happened ... he has been very confident -- naively -- that this would all blow over."

Is Oliver his lawyer? A new lawyer? Sounds like he needs to go back to school. There are some things you just don't say, and your client thinking this would blow over is DEFINITELY not something you say out loud much less to the media! Jeebus. *facepalm*

katydid23

04-06-2012, 06:01 PM

I'm still stuck on you've killed someone and a week or two later all you can say is, "I thought it would have blown over by now"

"It's just starting to sink in" to Zimmerman how big the controversy over the shooting has become, Oliver said. "Up until this point, because he was there and he knows what happened ... he has been very confident -- naively -- that this would all blow over."

See, this is what I am talking about. GZ is NOT the one who said that. It was said by a guy who may or may not be his friend. Someone who admitted he hadn't even seen him after the shooting. But then GZ is now being judged for a statement that he did not even make. And to say " ALL HE CAN SAY about the killing is this ..." is really unfair, imo. Because he didn't say it, and it is not the only thing he has said, surely.

katydid23

04-06-2012, 06:02 PM

Is Oliver his lawyer? A new lawyer? Sounds like he needs to go back to school. There are some things you just don't say, and your client thinking this would blow over is DEFINITELY not something you say out loud much less to the media! Jeebus. *facepalm*

But there are no quotes in that article. Who says what GZ said IF ANYTHING, about it blowing over.

katydid23

04-06-2012, 06:06 PM

I could tell a reporter that I was friends with the Martin family. And I could say " Gee, they thought there would have been lots of riots happening already." Would anyone assume that it was a valid or accurate quote? I doubt it. So why jump to conclusions about what GZ supposedly said?

mercuriod

04-06-2012, 06:09 PM

I don't disagree with you LC - as far as the NWP, he volunteered for the job, but that doesn't mean the management company may have also had an arrangement with him - management would take care of the rented units for the bank, HOA would be over the owned units.

I tend to agree with you after looking at the calls - there were only about 6 per year - not nearly what one would expect of a non-commissioned courtesy officer. The thing that bothers me though, his calls escalated once he appointed himself NWB captain....and made me re-think my position that he may have been CO at his previous apartments. The apartments from 2005 are over 500 units, no way was he a non-commissioned CO there with so few calls to LE. A property that size would have law enforcement patrol anyway - if for no other reason than to have their marked cars visible.

However - if GZ made friends with the cops that were patrol officers on the communities, he might see himself as helping them out, getting in good in case he needed references if and when he applied himself. Patrol officers who work as CO's on properties really don't do much at all - they're just a presence for the most part.

I do think he wanted to be a cop and I don't think he should have been issued a gun - what happened with Trayvon was bound to happen. IMO

Where are you getting that GZ was an non-commissioned courtesy officer? Links please

highflyer

04-06-2012, 06:11 PM

But there are no quotes in that article. Who says what GZ said IF ANYTHING, about it blowing over.

Corpses have been misidentified by pictures before, so they don't take any chances with that. Death is cruel in general - I don't see much difference between showing someone a picture of their dead relative and showing them the actual person, except the reality might be easier to accept in the morgue. If someone is dead, the body is going to be viewed at the funeral anyway.

They can't, and hence the morgue visit. The horrible thing for Mr. Martin was probably realizing with horror that Trayvon died so close to the house in a place where he expected to be safe. It's a nightmare. :(

Not to mention there wasn't a sign of a homicide having taken place on the premises when he and his GF arrived back at the complex just three hours later....JMHO

LambChop

04-06-2012, 06:14 PM

I agree that they are trying out defense strategies. But having been attacked in a similar manner as GZ has claimed, I find the description believable. GZ was more evenly matched than I was, but it is hard (impossible for me) to stand, walk, or run when your attacker is on top of you slamming your head into the floor by violently shaking your shoulders (they pick you up at your shoulders and then slam you back down). Because I've been in a similar situation, I find GZ's fear of brain injury to be one of the most believable aspects of his story.

JMO, OMO, and :moo:

But, but he has no hair. How do you bang someone's head continually when they have no hair??? If anything I would think TM would try to choke him. GZ's arms were not pinned down there are lots of defensive moves he could have done to get TM off him. A bouncer who can't get someone off them???? I just don't believe his story. I really think GZ was holding onto TM and that is why TM could not get away and why GZ could not get up. I think that was him who called for help before the 911 calls because he wanted John to help him get this guy off me until LE gets here.

Why call LE - GZ did not want this one to get away
Why follow - GZ did not want this one to get away
Why get out of the car - GZ did not want this one to get away
What sounds logical to me is GZ got into a struggle with TM because he did not want this one to get away.

TM's history shows no violence. His older brother was interviewed and appears well spoken and very mild/laid back. He claims his brother was the same. TM's friends say he was the same. There is no reason to believe TM would have jumped GZ but there is reason to believe GZ may have wanted to keep TM right where he was until LE got there. There is reason to believe GZ never told TM that LE was on their way and he needed to wait. He didn't do so when he was on the line with LE. TM cannot speak for himself other than what his family, teachers, friends all say about him. He just does not seem like the type to jump someone from behind and if what the GF said is true we know he didn't, he asked a simple question, "Why are you following me?" jmo

Actually, this article is quoting GZ's friend, Joe Oliver. And Joe is not quoting GZ. In fact, he only says "he heard" that GZ couldn't stop crying, not that he personally witnessed that or had even seen GZ since the shooting.

But that's all the more reason not to say it. Joe isn't doing George any favors by giving this quote, ESPECIALLY if George never said it.

Honestly, George or his lawyer probably needed to tell everyone who is "helping" to just shut up and stop talking to the media. Remember when we kept wondering where all the Anthony friends were? Maybe they were getting better legal advice than we gave them credit for. I can only imagine what would have come out of those interviews!

The quotes are for OLIVER, not Zimmerman, if I am reading it correctly.

mfcmom

04-06-2012, 06:18 PM

I do not know about illegal but it certainly calls the report into question. I can only say this: in the department I worked for, I was never once asked to alter a submitted report once it had been accepted, and when I was eventually a supervisor myself, it never once occured to me to ask someone else to do so. I cannot imagine it even coming up, other than in some effort to rewrite history or something. New information comes to light every day during an investigation. That follow up investigation and information has it's own report, and one from every single officer involved.

I can understand relabeling a case file, or ammending a cover letter or something, but actually altering a report?

IN MY OPINION ONLY!

(Note: I said "once accepted." By this I mean that, despite their training, it is not uncommon to see new officers attempt to turn in reports that are complete trash. It is a supervisor's job to ensure that this doesn't happen.) Our department was allowed to do "supplemetal reports". That is pretty standard if there is additional information.

uvamerica

04-06-2012, 06:19 PM

Is Oliver his lawyer? A new lawyer? Sounds like he needs to go back to school. There are some things you just don't say, and your client thinking this would blow over is DEFINITELY not something you say out loud much less to the media! Jeebus. *facepalm*

Mr Oliver is an acquaintance of George Zimmerman's, IIRC he was GZ'S media adviser, until a 2nd lawyer was added to GZ's team. :moo:

Aedrys

04-06-2012, 06:23 PM

Mr Oliver is an acquaintance of George Zimmerman's, IIRC he was GZ'S media adviser, until a 2nd lawyer was added to GZ's team. :moo:

Sorry, I did not know that. He needs to stop talking for GZ. Even if GZ didn't say it, I don't see anything about him not being happy that this person spoke for him. If he gave this person permission to speak for him, then it's just like he was the one saying it, IMO.

highflyer

04-06-2012, 06:24 PM

The quotes are for OLIVER, not Zimmerman, if I am reading it correctly.

Why yes they certainly are. Zimmerman's friends, family and lawyer are in the media giving George's account. That is what we have from Zimmerman.

Dr.Fessel

04-06-2012, 06:25 PM

Adding to the uncertainty and flux was the sense among some residents that this secured community was no longer so secure. There had been burglaries; at least seven in 2011, according to police reports. Strangers had started showing up, said Frank Taaffe, 55, a marketing specialist, originally from the Bronx, who works out of his home in the Retreat. He made it clear that he was not talking about just any strangers.

Last August, the homeowners association decided to create a neighborhood watch, and a Sanford police official came to the Retreat to explain the guidelines: volunteers do not possess police powers; they should not be armed; and they should be the eyes and ears for the police — but not vigilantes.

The group chose as its neighborhood watch coordinator the very man who had invited the official to speak: a man with thinning dark hair and an average build named George Zimmerman. The next month, the newsletter for the homeowners association included a cartoon of a man peering through a magnifying glass, à la Sherlock Holmes, next to a call for help: “We have recently experienced an increased incidence of crime within the community, including three break-ins in the past month, which is why having residents committed to being members of the Neighborhood Watch and reporting suspicious activities is so important. We must send a message that we will not tolerate this in our community!”

Wonder who the Officer was and I wonder if George showed them the cool gun he was packing.

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 06:26 PM

See, this is what I am talking about. GZ is NOT the one who said that. It was said by a guy who may or may not be his friend. Someone who admitted he hadn't even seen him after the shooting. But then GZ is now being judged for a statement that he did not even make. And to say " ALL HE CAN SAY about the killing is this ..." is really unfair, imo. Because he didn't say it, and it is not the only thing he has said, surely.

If GZ didn't want him speaking on his behalf... he would have his lawyers threaten legal action. If he was not given permission to be speaking on GZ's behalf then GZ has a right to ask him to stop or threaten to sue.

angelmom

04-06-2012, 06:28 PM

Adding to the uncertainty and flux was the sense among some residents that this secured community was no longer so secure. There had been burglaries; at least seven in 2011, according to police reports. Strangers had started showing up, said Frank Taaffe, 55, a marketing specialist, originally from the Bronx, who works out of his home in the Retreat. He made it clear that he was not talking about just any strangers.

Last August, the homeowners association decided to create a neighborhood watch, and a Sanford police official came to the Retreat to explain the guidelines: volunteers do not possess police powers; they should not be armed; and they should be the eyes and ears for the police — but not vigilantes.

The group chose as its neighborhood watch coordinator the very man who had invited the official to speak: a man with thinning dark hair and an average build named George Zimmerman. The next month, the newsletter for the homeowners association included a cartoon of a man peering through a magnifying glass, à la Sherlock Holmes, next to a call for help: “We have recently experienced an increased incidence of crime within the community, including three break-ins in the past month, which is why having residents committed to being members of the Neighborhood Watch and reporting suspicious activities is so important. We must send a message that we will not tolerate this in our community!”

Wonder who the Officer was and I wonder if George showed them the cool gun he was packing.

Add Mr. T to the list of people who should STOP HELPING George. FGS, what is a "Trayvon-like dude"???

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 06:31 PM

Add Mr. T to the list of people who should STOP HELPING George. FGS, what is a "Trayvon-like dude"???

I was thinking the same thing? :banghead:

katydid23

04-06-2012, 06:32 PM

If GZ didn't want him speaking on his behalf... he would have his lawyers threaten legal action. If he was not given permission to be speaking on GZ's behalf then GZ has a right to ask him to stop or threaten to sue.

I really doubt that he asked Oliver to tell everyone that he was surprised this whole thing hasn't blown over already.

angelmom

04-06-2012, 06:32 PM

Why yes they certainly are. Zimmerman's friends, family and lawyer are in the media giving George's account. That is what we have from Zimmerman.

ITA that if they are not speaking for him or not speaking accurately, he should issue a statement to that effect through his attorney.

My only point is that I'm not taking anything Joe Oliver or Frank Taafe say as gospel truth from GZ's mouth or otherwise. The two of them plus his dad and brother are almost enough for me to feel sorry for GZ. With friends like that...

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 06:36 PM

I really doubt that he asked Oliver to tell everyone that he was surprised this whole thing hasn't blown over already.

So you think Mr. Oliver just said it because he felt like it? Look, if GZ wanted to... he could have his lawyer release a statement on his behalf denying it and then he can politely ask that Mr. Oliver stop speaking to the media on GZ's behalf. If Mr. Oliver continues to do so... take legal action.

TonyGatto

04-06-2012, 06:36 PM

Well, I guess we can drop the speculation about whether or not Trayvon was at the 7-11 on the night of his murder...

Georgia Students Gather In Sanford For Trayvon Martin

A corporate spokeswoman for 7-Eleven said on Thursday they have a video secured at corporate headquarters showing Martin the night he was killed.
An executive with 7-Eleven viewed the tape and can confirm: "he observed an African American male in a hoodie purchase Skittles and an iced tea between 6 and 6:30 that evening."

This is the most significant FACT that has come out in days. Adds to TM's credibility, his story -- not that his credibility should ever have come into question.

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 06:37 PM

I really doubt that he asked Oliver to tell everyone that he was surprised this whole thing hasn't blown over already.

I'm also sure he didn't want Frank Taffe (sp?) to go on national television and admit to the world that GZ had "fed up" issues?

It's GZ's job to put a stop to it. They are his friends and family. If they are saying things that are not true... tell them to stop?

annalia

04-06-2012, 06:38 PM

ITA that if they are not speaking for him or not speaking accurately, he should issue a statement to that effect through his attorney.

My only point is that I'm not taking anything Joe Oliver or Frank Taafe say as gospel truth from GZ's mouth or otherwise. The two of them plus his dad and brother are almost enough for me to feel sorry for GZ. With friends like that...

Gz left Taafe a voice mail, thanking him for what he's been doing, GZ obviously approves of Taafe's message.

It doesn't make me feel sorry for GZ at all, sounds to me like birds of a feather.

JMHO

vlpate

04-06-2012, 06:39 PM

I dona't know Jeanna. Walking around is not a crime. Let me give you an example. When I go back east to visit with my daughter and grands, I often go outside and sit on a wall or walk down the street with the phone talking to my husband or work back home.

I'm an empty nester and while I enjoy every second of being with my grands, the noise and confusion and running etc., tends to wear on me after a while. My home is very quiet. So I take a nice long walk, sneak a cigg and just walk about.

Even though I'm a stranger in the neighborhood I've never been stopped or followed in the rain, or even the snow doing this.

Maybe Trayvon in that he was staying not in his own home, but visiting just felt isolated and wanted to talk to his girl on the phone and that is really all he was doing. Walking about trying to find some space away from the people he was staying with. I really can understand that. Because I'm not the type to stay in anyone else's house but my own.

I agree with this - people should be able to walk around without fear of being suspected of doing more. Women should be able to walk at night without fear of being stalked and stared out, and made to feel afraid (real or imagined). I am staying away from home right now - not familiar with the neighborhood at all. Last night I went to walk my dogs and a guy was just standing around by the gates smoking. He watched me walk out and I could feel him watching while I walked and I started getting the creeps (my two chi-pins don't instill fear, they just annoy). I let them pee and started walking back to my place while one was still in mid stream. I couldn't get back in and lock the door fast enough.

This guy, and he was either spanish or white, hard to tell in the dark, really scared me. He wasn't doing anything but watching me. In my mind though, I know the guy could overtake me easily - so I made sure I was somewhere safe quickly. I had my cell, but I'd have felt really silly calling 911 at that point.

What I would not have done is say eff it, I have a right to be here as much as he does. Would I ask him what the he** he's looking at, no, that would be weird. So this is all on me ... until he starts following me - then I have to make some choices - a)take my bum home as fast as my legs will carry me, b)call 911, or c)put on my big girl panties and confront him. Of course I would choose "a" while simultaneously performing "b". "C", would not be an option - he could definitely take me, and he might have a gun. In Texas, the gun is always a pretty good bet.

So there is my sticking point - why didn't Trayvon just keep running all the way home if GZ was scaring him? The ONLY thing I can come up with is he wasn't scared and wanted to put a little fear into this a** 'le. Right or wrong, this is all I can come up with....and that it backfired, TM didn't consider there might be a gun.

When I get scared, I also get ticked off because I feel so helpless. I always think if I were a guy I could at least confront the jerks. So do I blame TM if this is what happened? Not at all - good for him. I just don't think anyone is going to buy that he was scared - and therefore, the arrest will never happen. I hate the SYG law as it applies to this case - but I hate more that Trayvon didn't just walk or run away from it. Guns give otherwise cowardly jerks confidence.

While I have your attention grandmaj - did you see my question about the picture shown to Tracy? Is that normal SOP? I always thought ID's were done at the morgue.

JMO!!

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 06:40 PM

This is the most significant FACT that has come out in days. Adds to TM's credibility, his story -- not that his credibility should ever have come into question.

Good! Thankfully they made sure to say "purchased" that way any insinuations that Trayvon may have stole the items (receipts, etc...) can be put to rest.

Kimberlyd125

04-06-2012, 06:44 PM

Has anybody insinuated he stole the items? I've never seen or heard such an insinuation.

katydid23

04-06-2012, 06:44 PM

So you think Mr. Oliver just said it because he felt like it? Look, if GZ wanted to... he could have his lawyer release a statement on his behalf denying it and then he can politely ask that Mr. Oliver stop speaking to the media on GZ's behalf. If Mr. Oliver continues to do so... take legal action.

I think mr Oliver just has a ham-handed way of expressing things. He puts his foot in his mouth. Maybe the essence of what he was TRYING to express is there, but is done very insensitively. Maybe what he meant was that GZ felt confident that once people realized the facts and that he was legally defending himself, then things would work themselves out eventually. Or something more along those lines. But obviously, using words like ' blow over' is not what GZ was hoping for in a spokesman.

I don't think GZ is going to bother with any of these statements right now. He is probably overwhelmed and dealing with much bigger issues.

uvamerica

04-06-2012, 06:45 PM

Adding to the uncertainty and flux was the sense among some residents that this secured community was no longer so secure. There had been burglaries; at least seven in 2011, according to police reports. Strangers had started showing up, said Frank Taaffe, 55, a marketing specialist, originally from the Bronx, who works out of his home in the Retreat. He made it clear that he was not talking about just any strangers.

Last August, the homeowners association decided to create a neighborhood watch, and a Sanford police official came to the Retreat to explain the guidelines: volunteers do not possess police powers; they should not be armed; and they should be the eyes and ears for the police — but not vigilantes.

The group chose as its neighborhood watch coordinator the very man who had invited the official to speak: a man with thinning dark hair and an average build named George Zimmerman. The next month, the newsletter for the homeowners association included a cartoon of a man peering through a magnifying glass, à la Sherlock Holmes, next to a call for help: “We have recently experienced an increased incidence of crime within the community, including three break-ins in the past month, which is why having residents committed to being members of the Neighborhood Watch and reporting suspicious activities is so important. We must send a message that we will not tolerate this in our community!”

Wonder who the Officer was and I wonder if George showed them the cool gun he was packing.

Did all the break-ins and crime start before GZ moved into the neighborhood or after ?

vlpate

04-06-2012, 06:45 PM

This is the most significant FACT that has come out in days. Adds to TM's credibility, his story -- not that his credibility should ever have come into question.

I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone question that he went to 7-11. I was interested in the time it took him to walk there and back. Lying about his going to 7-11 would have been silly - it's easily proven with a video.

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 06:46 PM

If I was investigating this incident... I would get that 7-11 tape just to make sure there is no sighting of GZ's truck or him coming into the store to make a purchase anywhere near the time Trayvon was there. Or even earlier to make sure he didn't purchase any alcohol... since they didn't test him.

This gives me a little hope that they may have been able to get the tapes from the apartment complex. Please! Please! Please have the tapes from the Apartment complex!

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 06:48 PM

I'm not sure I've ever seen anyone question that he went to 7-11. I was interested in the time it took him to walk there and back. Lying about his going to 7-11 would have been silly - it's easily proven with a video.

There were a lot of people questioning whether he went to 7-11. Some even said he could have been carrying the Skittles and Tea for days? Some even wanted receipts?

So yes, it is a very significant piece of the puzzle and I wish we could see the actual tape.

MOO

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 06:49 PM

Has anybody insinuated he stole the items? I've never seen or heard such an insinuation.

Yes. It was probably two threads back. Some wanted to know where Trayvon's receipt was to prove he made the purchases. There was a big discussion about how most people do not get cash receipts from a store unless asked.

angelmom

04-06-2012, 06:51 PM

So there is my sticking point - why didn't Trayvon just keep running all the way home if GZ was scaring him? The ONLY thing I can come up with is he wasn't scared and wanted to put a little fear into this a** 'le. Right or wrong, this is all I can come up with....and that it backfired, TM didn't consider there might be a gun.

But what if the gun was already out? Would you turn your back on someone with a gun and run or would you try to talk to them, call for help, maybe cry "NOOOOOO!!!!" ??

What if you were lost and trying to get home but the next thing you know you are face to face with the person you are running from? And he has a loaded, semi-automatic weapon.

What if you thought you were being mugged and decided that you'd just give the guy the $22 in your pocket and pray he let you go home? But then he takes aim.

I can come up with a hundred reasons Trayvon didn't make it home but no reasonable one for why GZ should have been following him with a weapon after being told by dispatch that they did not need him to do that and they were on the way.

highflyer

04-06-2012, 06:51 PM

I agree with this - people should be able to walk around without fear of being suspected of doing more. Women should be able to walk at night without fear of being stalked and stared out, and made to feel afraid (real or imagined). I am staying away from home right now - not familiar with the neighborhood at all. Last night I went to walk my dogs and a guy was just standing around by the gates smoking. He watched me walk out and I could feel him watching while I walked and I started getting the creeps (my two chi-pins don't instill fear, they just annoy). I let them pee and started walking back to my place while one was still in mid stream. I couldn't get back in and lock the door fast enough.

This guy, and he was either spanish or white, hard to tell in the dark, really scared me. He wasn't doing anything but watching me. In my mind though, I know the guy could overtake me easily - so I made sure I was somewhere safe quickly. I had my cell, but I'd have felt really silly calling 911 at that point.

What I would not have done is say eff it, I have a right to be here as much as he does. Would I ask him what the he** he's looking at, no, that would be weird. So this is all on me ... until he starts following me - then I have to make some choices - a)take my bum home as fast as my legs will carry me, b)call 911, or c)put on my big girl panties and confront him. Of course I would choose "a" while simultaneously performing "b". "C", would not be an option - he could definitely take me, and he might have a gun. In Texas, the gun is always a pretty good bet.

So there is my sticking point - why didn't Trayvon just keep running all the way home if GZ was scaring him? The ONLY thing I can come up with is he wasn't scared and wanted to put a little fear into this a** 'le. Right or wrong, this is all I can come up with....and that it backfired, TM didn't consider there might be a gun.

When I get scared, I also get ticked off because I feel so helpless. I always think if I were a guy I could at least confront the jerks. So do I blame TM if this is what happened? Not at all - good for him. I just don't think anyone is going to buy that he was scared - and therefore, the arrest will never happen. I hate the SYG law as it applies to this case - but I hate more that Trayvon didn't just walk or run away from it. Guns give otherwise cowardly jerks confidence.

While I have your attention grandmaj - did you see my question about the picture shown to Tracy? Is that normal SOP? I always thought ID's were done at the morgue.

JMO!!

If George is someone that people may have to run from, then he shouldn't ever of been issued a gun permit, let alone a concealed carry.

Kimberlyd125

04-06-2012, 06:52 PM

Yes. It was probably two threads back. Some wanted to know where Trayvon's receipt was to prove he made the purchases. There was a big discussion about how most people do not get cash receipts from a store unless asked.

I must have missed that. I don't think anyone should question if he stole the items. And a receipt would be totally irrelevant to this case IMO.

I'm not sure why his trip to 7-11 even matters unless it's to construct a timeline.

JMO

Dr.Fessel

04-06-2012, 06:52 PM

Mr. Zimmerman’s father provided a different account, based on his conversations with his son. He said that George Zimmerman had lost sight of the hooded figure and was beginning to walk back to his vehicle when Trayvon appeared from his rear left side. He also described a conversation that began far differently than the one recalled by the girl on the phone.

“He did not see Trayvon until he was right there,” he said, at which point, Trayvon, cursing, asked if George Zimmerman had “a problem.”

“And George said, ‘No, I don’t have a problem,’ or ‘No, there is no problem.’ And Trayvon said, ‘You do now,’ and he punched George in the nose.”

Here even Mr. Zimmerman acknowledges that there is some confusion. He told an Orlando news station that George was reaching for his cellphone when Trayvon punched him. But, in a later interview with The New York Times, he said that he was unsure whether his son made that movement and that he might have conflated news media reports with what he thought his son may have told him.

So Mr. Zimmerman is backing away now from George telling him he backed up to reach for his phone and call police when Martin punched him.

My gut tells me he is backing away from that statement because George carries his cell phone on his belt right by his gun I bet. IMO

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 06:54 PM

I must have missed that. I don't think anyone should question if he stole the items. And a receipt would be totally irrelevant to this case IMO.

I'm not sure why his trip to 7-11 even matters unless it's to construct a timeline.

JMO

I think it does go to the timeline. I'm actually hoping we can get video of Trayvon leaving the complex, then at 7-11, and then coming back into the complex. Hopefully even have some video of him at the clubhouse. I think it would be nice to see what was so "suspicious" about Trayvon?

I also want to see if GZ had made his own trip to the 7-11 that day?

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 06:56 PM

Mr. Zimmerman’s father provided a different account, based on his conversations with his son. He said that George Zimmerman had lost sight of the hooded figure and was beginning to walk back to his vehicle when Trayvon appeared from his rear left side. He also described a conversation that began far differently than the one recalled by the girl on the phone.

“He did not see Trayvon until he was right there,” he said, at which point, Trayvon, cursing, asked if George Zimmerman had “a problem.”

“And George said, ‘No, I don’t have a problem,’ or ‘No, there is no problem.’ And Trayvon said, ‘You do now,’ and he punched George in the nose.”

Here even Mr. Zimmerman acknowledges that there is some confusion. He told an Orlando news station that George was reaching for his cellphone when Trayvon punched him. But, in a later interview with The New York Times, he said that he was unsure whether his son made that movement and that he might have conflated news media reports with what he thought his son may have told him.

So Mr. Zimmerman is backing away now from George telling him he backed up to reach for his phone and call police when Martin punched him.

My gut tells me he is backing away from that statement because George carries his cell phone on his belt right by his gun I bet. IMO

I personally think the whole "going for the cell phone" was actually "going for the gun."

MOO

Kimberlyd125

04-06-2012, 06:59 PM

I think it does go to the timeline. I'm actually hoping we can get video of Trayvon leaving the complex, then at 7-11, and then coming back into the complex. Hopefully even have some video of him at the clubhouse. I think it would be nice to see what was so "suspicious" about Trayvon?

I also want to see if GZ had made his own trip to the 7-11 that day?

Just as TM's purchases are irrelevant I also think GZ's purchases, if he made any, are irrelevant.

IMO 7-11 as a whole is irrelevant.

What is relevant, is what happened from the first moment these two laid eyes on each other until the gunshot.

I wish they had video of that. But from the looks of things, they don't.

JMO

octobermoon

04-06-2012, 06:59 PM

Yes. It was probably two threads back. Some wanted to know where Trayvon's receipt was to prove he made the purchases. There was a big discussion about how most people do not get cash receipts from a store unless asked.

Yes, there was. Concerned Papa even posted a pic of the trash cans near the entrance/exit of that 7-11.

grandmaj

04-06-2012, 07:00 PM

Identifying deceased persons - don't you have to identify the body at a morgue? The full body, not a horrible picture. Having a hard time getting past LE showing a picture of Trayvon looking that way. Please tell me this is not SOP!

I missed the VLPate. Thanks for calling it to my attention.

No you don't have to always identify at the morgue. If he had ID on him it would have been pretty simple. They would look at his DL and confirm it is most likely the same person. They might do further examination like FP and or/dental too. And ask that the family give a picture to be sure. Sometimes it isn't even the next of kin but a more distant relative who would step up and say let me do it for you.

A person can identify someone by use of a picture. They would provide a picture to LE/ME and sometimes a picture of the decedent is showed to them. Sometimes they go on dental records or identifying features like a Tat or birthmark in addition to a picture..... Of course if they find the body in a home it makes it easier to tie the person to the home. I'm not saying identification at a ME is not ever done, it is. But not every time.

It is very difficult to go to the ME's office and identify a body. So whenever possible at least with the ME's I work with, they will try to use pictures and other means as I mentioned above. But I've never heard of a crime scene picture being shown to a family. There are better ways.

There are times the family wants to go to the coroners office. They need to know in their own mind that this is their loved one. I cannot say what protocol is in that State. But I can't believe protocol is showing a loved one at a crime scene. I just can't.

Emeralgem

04-06-2012, 07:01 PM

Mr. Zimmerman’s father provided a different account, based on his conversations with his son. He said that George Zimmerman had lost sight of the hooded figure and was beginning to walk back to his vehicle when Trayvon appeared from his rear left side. He also described a conversation that began far differently than the one recalled by the girl on the phone.

“He did not see Trayvon until he was right there,” he said, at which point, Trayvon, cursing, asked if George Zimmerman had “a problem.”

“And George said, ‘No, I don’t have a problem,’ or ‘No, there is no problem.’ And Trayvon said, ‘You do now,’ and he punched George in the nose.”

Here even Mr. Zimmerman acknowledges that there is some confusion. He told an Orlando news station that George was reaching for his cellphone when Trayvon punched him. But, in a later interview with The New York Times, he said that he was unsure whether his son made that movement and that he might have conflated news media reports with what he thought his son may have told him.

So Mr. Zimmerman is backing away now from George telling him he backed up to reach for his phone and call police when Martin punched him.

My gut tells me he is backing away from that statement because George carries his cell phone on his belt right by his gun I bet. IMO

BBM..But we ALL know GZ did have a problem, and the problem was with TM..We also know GZ had already called the police on TM and GZ knew they were on their way... IIRC He also requested LE call him when they arrived on the premises and he would advise them as to where he was... JMHO

highflyer

04-06-2012, 07:01 PM

Just as TM's purchases are irrelevant I also think GZ's purchases, if he made any, are irrelevant.

IMO 7-11 as a whole is irrelevant.

What is relevant, is what happened from the first moment these two laid eyes on each other until the gunshot.

I wish they had video of that. But from the looks of things, they don't.

JMO

No, the timeline is important. Where they had both been earlier in the day. Any witnesses to their activities earlier in the day, such as possibly seeing George drinking.

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 07:02 PM

Just as TM's purchases are irrelevant I also think GZ's purchases, if he made any, are irrelevant.

IMO 7-11 as a whole is irrelevant.

What is relevant, is what happened from the first moment these two laid eyes on each other until the gunshot.

I wish they had video of that. But from the looks of things, they don't.

JMO

Wouldn't you like to know if he had been drinking? I know I would? If it's true that he became a completely different person when drinking (assaulting cops/throwing girls across the room) and he had purchased alcohol that day, I think it does have some relevance? I don't know if they could use that in court because they didn't test him, but it would put my mind at ease?

MOO

Kimberlyd125

04-06-2012, 07:05 PM

No, the timeline is important. Where they had both been earlier in the day. Any witnesses to their activities earlier in the day, such as possibly seeing George drinking.

I agree the timeline is important.
I mentioned the timeline a few posts up.

But you wouldn't see anyone drinking in a 7-11. That's my point.

Even if you saw GZ buying alcohol at the 7-11 it would be irrelevant unless he was on camera drinking it.

I buy beer sometimes at a convenience store, but I don't drink it.

My point is, 7-11 purchases are not relevant to this case.

What happened in that gated community is what is most important. From the time these two met and the gunshot.

JMO

LambChop

04-06-2012, 07:06 PM

Let's face it why would we even expect a teen who just turned 17 to have the experience to size up a situation he's never been in before. I was followed by a man will ill intent when I was 18 and I can tell you I did not know what to do. Kids do not have the priviledge of experience behind them unless they have been part of a street gang for years. We can all think of how we would act but it's not fair to put that kind of should of, could of, would of to someone so young. They lack the maturity to make informed decisions. Some children have been very protected regardless of how tough they may want you to think they are, it still does not mean they instantly know what to do. jmo

Kimberlyd125

04-06-2012, 07:07 PM

Wouldn't you like to know if he had been drinking? I know I would? If it's true that he became a completely different person when drinking (assaulting cops/throwing girls across the room) and he had purchased alcohol that day, I think it does have some relevance? I don't know if they could use that in court because they didn't test him, but it would put my mind at ease?

MOO

But 7-11 tapes would not tell you if he had been drinking.

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 07:08 PM

I agree the timeline is important.
I mentioned the timeline a few posts up.

But you wouldn't see anyone drinking in a 7-11. That's my point.

Even if you saw GZ buying alcohol at the 7-11 it would be irrelevant unless he was on camera drinking it.

I buy beer sometimes at a convenience store, but I don't drink it.

My point is, 7-11 purchases are not relevant to this case.

What happened in that gated community is what is most important. From the time these two met and the gunshot.

JMO

Well, depends on who owns the 7-11? :floorlaugh: I've seen 7-11's pop open the beers for the customers (a big no no).

I agree that there would be no way to prove he had actually drank the alcohol (if he bought some earlier that day) because he wasn't tested. :banghead: I would still like to see if he had been there at all that day... especially around the time Trayvon was there.

MOO

ynotdivein

04-06-2012, 07:09 PM

Seems that many here would like to know if GZ had been drinking that night.

Also seems that many here would like to know if TM had done anything other than walk straight to the store and back that night.

AFAICT, we have insufficient evidence at this time to prove anything conclusive about either of these questions.

Until we do, let's move the discussion on to more productive lines of sleuthing.

This post lands at random, and :tyou:

uvamerica

04-06-2012, 07:11 PM

"ZIMMERMAN: Off of that sidewalk there's another sidewalk that goes between two rows of townhomes. It's my understanding that Trayvon went between the two rows of townhomes, and George was walking down the main sidewalk to see if he could see where Trayvon was going."

"He continued walking down that sidewalk to the next street. He wanted an address. All he could see was the back of the townhomes and he could not see an address. So he asked the dispatcher to have the responding unit call him, and he could tell him the address."

"George was walking down the main sidewalk to see if he could see where Trayvon was going."

"He continued walking down that sidewalk to the next street. He wanted an address. All he could see was the back of the town homes and he could not see an address."

How could GZ be on the sidewalk of the main street, and only see the back of homes ? Aren't the homes on the main street facing the road ? with the numbers on the front ?
:waitasec:

So the 7-11 has the tape, but they didn't say that LE had been there to look at it? I wonder if LE has taken the tape and made copies? But then why would the tape need to be at 7-11 headquarters? You can erase/tape over the tape after LE has made copies?

mfcmom

04-06-2012, 07:13 PM

Bit we ALL know GZ did have a problem, and the problem was with TM..We also know GZ had already called the police on TM and GZ knew they were on their way... IIRC He also requested LE call him when they arrived on the premises and he would advise them as to where he was... JMHO

Here's where the problem is. The dispatcher told him re: Following TM, "we don't want you to do that". Had he listened to the dispatcher, no one would have had to call him back to find out where he was. Why would they have to they already knew. He didn't. He made the choice to pursue the boy. I seriously suspect he drew his gun. That would explain why TM was yelling for help. That shows intent. When I used to work for the PD, we would call those kind of guys, policemen or civilians "hot dogs". JMO

vlpate

04-06-2012, 07:14 PM

I missed the VLPate. Thanks for calling it to my attention.

No you don't have to always identify at the morgue. If he had ID on him it would have been pretty simple. They would look at his DL and confirm it is most likely the same person. They might do further examination like FP and or/dental too. And ask that the family give a picture to be sure. Sometimes it isn't even the next of kin but a more distant relative who would step up and say let me do it for you.

A person can identify someone by use of a picture. They would provide a picture to LE/ME and sometimes a picture of the decedent is showed to them. Sometimes they go on dental records or identifying features like a Tat or birthmark in addition to a picture..... Of course if they find the body in a home it makes it easier to tie the person to the home. I'm not saying identification at a ME is not ever done, it is. But not every time.

It is very difficult to go to the ME's office and identify a body. So whenever possible at least with the ME's I work with, they will try to use pictures and other means as I mentioned above. But I've never heard of a crime scene picture being shown to a family. There are better ways.

There are times the family wants to go to the coroners office. They need to know in their own mind that this is their loved one. I cannot say what protocol is in that State. But I can't believe protocol is showing a loved one at a crime scene. I just can't.

Tracy Martin says the police brought out a picture of Trayvon, dead, eyes rolled back in his head, drooling. I am having daymares thinking about how absolutely devastating that would be to a parent - it would always be burned in your mind. You mentioned tattoos, which Trayvon had - it seems to me they would have looked at the picture Tracy showed them from his phone, and then follow up with, "did he have a tattoo?" and if so, what kind.

Thank you for answering. If Tracy's version of this story is true, and this is out of the ordinary, those officers should be brought up on cruelty charges.

NBC News has fired a producer who was involved in the production of a misleading segment about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida.

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 07:16 PM

"ZIMMERMAN: Off of that sidewalk there's another sidewalk that goes between two rows of townhomes. It's my understanding that Trayvon went between the two rows of townhomes, and George was walking down the main sidewalk to see if he could see where Trayvon was going."

"He continued walking down that sidewalk to the next street. He wanted an address. All he could see was the back of the townhomes and he could not see an address. So he asked the dispatcher to have the responding unit call him, and he could tell him the address."

"George was walking down the main sidewalk to see if he could see where Trayvon was going."

"He continued walking down that sidewalk to the next street. He wanted an address. All he could see was the back of the town homes and he could not see an address."

How could GZ be on the sidewalk of the main street, and only see the back of homes ? Aren't the homes on the main street facing the road ? with the numbers on the front ?
:waitasec:

I know? It makes no sense? Was he looking for a building number? I would think with him being neighborhood watch, he would have a map showing all the buildings and the building numbers? I'm not even neighborhood watch and I have one?

He says Trayvon was inbetween the houses, yet he was on the main sidewalk, but he could only see the back of the townhouses? That would put him on that back sidewalk, right?

m00c0w

04-06-2012, 07:16 PM

Mr. Zimmerman’s father provided a different account, based on his conversations with his son. He said that George Zimmerman had lost sight of the hooded figure and was beginning to walk back to his vehicle when Trayvon appeared from his rear left side. He also described a conversation that began far differently than the one recalled by the girl on the phone.

“He did not see Trayvon until he was right there,” he said, at which point, Trayvon, cursing, asked if George Zimmerman had “a problem.”

“And George said, ‘No, I don’t have a problem,’ or ‘No, there is no problem.’ And Trayvon said, ‘You do now,’ and he punched George in the nose.”

Here even Mr. Zimmerman acknowledges that there is some confusion. He told an Orlando news station that George was reaching for his cellphone when Trayvon punched him. But, in a later interview with The New York Times, he said that he was unsure whether his son made that movement and that he might have conflated news media reports with what he thought his son may have told him.

So Mr. Zimmerman is backing away now from George telling him he backed up to reach for his phone and call police when Martin punched him.

My gut tells me he is backing away from that statement because George carries his cell phone on his belt right by his gun I bet. IMO
I don't know. Most people carry their "accessories" on the opposite side from their weapon. Not only is it an issue of "balance", most people also think about potential encounters with police. If your cell phone is next to your gun, and you go to grab your phone... Things end badly. Since I carry my weapon around 4-5:00, I keep my wallet in my back left pocket just so there is no confusion about what I may be reaching for.

I cannot say if Zimmerman actually practiced this, but I would find it likely that he did.

JMO

octobermoon

04-06-2012, 07:18 PM

So the 7-11 has the tape, but they didn't say that LE had been there to look at it? I wonder if LE has taken the tape and made copies? But then why would the tape need to be at 7-11 headquarters? You can erase/tape over the tape after LE has made copies?

I would think the Higher ups of the franchise probably have some policy about keeping tapes for legal reasons. Especially with a huge national uproar. JMO IMO & MOO

Peliman

04-06-2012, 07:19 PM

I can come up with a hundred reasons Trayvon didn't make it home but no reasonable one for why GZ should have been following him with a weapon after being told by dispatch that they did not need him to do that and they were on the way.

If GZ was just being observant he would want to know where Trayvon was headed or which housing unit he went into. Then if it turns out someones home was broken into or a crime had been commited, GZ would be able to supply that information to detectives.

I don't know what happened that they confronted each other but in security observing and reporting is key to outcomes. JMO

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 07:19 PM

Another question? Why would he need to walk to the next street when his car is right there and he could have driven to the next street? It makes no sense? IMO, this whole checking for an address and being jumped from behind is a lie.

MOO

vlpate

04-06-2012, 07:23 PM

So the 7-11 has the tape, but they didn't say that LE had been there to look at it? I wonder if LE has taken the tape and made copies? But then why would the tape need to be at 7-11 headquarters? You can erase/tape over the tape after LE has made copies?

It depends on when LE called them. I lost a money order in front of a 7-11 about a year ago. I called the store to see if they could look at the tapes to discern whether or not I even received it from the clerk. The manager at the store took the information from my receipt and looked it right up. I had received it. The saw me go to my car but didn't see me drop the money order. Two days later I called their corporate because I had it in my head an employee picked it up off the floor (cynical much?), and they sent a supervisor out to view the tape. So, if they were there within the next few days, and they had his receipt, it shouldn't have been a problem. IMO

Dr.Fessel

04-06-2012, 07:23 PM

I don't know. Most people carry their "accessories" on the opposite side from their weapon. Not only is it an issue of "balance", most people also think about potential encounters with police. If your cell phone is next to your gun, and you go to grab your phone... Things end badly. Since I carry my weapon around 4-5:00, I keep my wallet in my back left pocket just so there is no confusion about what I may be reaching for.

I cannot say if Zimmerman actually practiced this, but I would find it likely that he did.

JMO

I think the important thing here is the unzipping the coat and showing the gun if he carries his phone on his belt.

Adrienne37

04-06-2012, 07:25 PM

This is the most significant FACT that has come out in days. Adds to TM's credibility, his story -- not that his credibility should ever have come into question.

Sadly it continues though.

~jmo~

Kimberlyd125

04-06-2012, 07:27 PM

I think the important thing here is the unzipping the coat and showing the gun if he carries his phone on his belt.

Would unzipping a jacket show a gun in a holster that is located inside a waistband?

I have no clue. I don't carry a gun.

But it seems to me that if it's inside the waistband, unzipping the jacket would not have made the gun visible.

Does some of it stick out?

LambChop

04-06-2012, 07:27 PM

If GZ was just being observant he would want to know where Trayvon was headed or which housing unit he went into. Then if it turns out someones home was broken into or a crime had been commited, GZ would be able to supply that information to detectives.

I don't know what happened that they confronted each other but in security observing and reporting is key to outcomes. JMO

GZ is not a security watchman. He had no authority from anyone to follow TM. He was asked by LE to stay with his car to meet the patrol car. He has no authority from the HOA. He had no authority to even question TM. With LE on the phone he could have asked TM where he was going and didn't use that opportunity to do so. He was just a private citizen who was just suppose to call in suspicious behavior...which to GZ is walking in the rain wearing a hoodie. jmo

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 07:29 PM

GZ is not a security watchman. He had no authority from anyone to follow TM. He was asked by LE to stay with his car to meet the patrol car. He has no authority from the HOA. He had no authority to even question TM. With LE on the phone he could have asked TM where he was going and didn't use that opportunity to do so. He was just a private citizen who was just suppose to call in suspicious behavior...which to GZ is walking in the rain wearing a hoodie. jmo

The misconception here, is that he doesn't have to have authority to follow someone who is in public, while waiting for LE to show up and investigate.

Where would we be, as a society, if you saw something you thought was suspicious and you don't have a right to keep an eye on the person while the cop you just called is on the way?

mfcmom

04-06-2012, 07:30 PM

Did anyone hear who it was who claimed GZ's after effects were like "shaken baby sydrome"? I think but am not sure it was his new attorney, Uhlrig. Does anyone have a link? I am furious, as the adoptive parent of a 13 year old who is in a wheelchair, has a feeding tube and the mentality of a five year old, who WAS a shaken baby at two years old. This is disgraceful and I really want to know who said it, I briefly caught it on one of the news stations and darn it did a double take and then it was gone. Can anyone help? I am so PO'd. TY

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 07:30 PM

Especially one savvy about police work? :what:

You don't think he's savvy about police work and procedures? I certainly do.

He's not one of those guys you see on COPS who call LE when their marijuana gets stolen.

uvamerica

04-06-2012, 07:30 PM

I know? It makes no sense? Was he looking for a building number? I would think with him being neighborhood watch, he would have a map showing all the buildings and the building numbers? I'm not even neighborhood watch and I have one?

He says Trayvon was inbetween the houses, yet he was on the main sidewalk, but he could only see the back of the townhouses? That would put him on that back sidewalk, right?

Not one bit of sense ! The story gets crazier and crazier, hard to believe.

GZ took it upon himself to know everything that goes on in that small neighborhood. I'd think he probably knew some of if not all the house numbers having called LE so many times.

Adrienne37

04-06-2012, 07:31 PM

If GZ was just being observant he would want to know where Trayvon was headed or which housing unit he went into. Then if it turns out someones home was broken into or a crime had been commited, GZ would be able to supply that information to detectives.

I don't know what happened that they confronted each other but in security observing and reporting is key to outcomes. JMO

He was not supposed to be doing any security. He had no duties whatsoever that he was required to partake in as a member of the neighborhood watch program. He was not supposed to be making rounds, he was not supposed to stalking anyone, he was not supposed to follow someone in his car, and sure wasn't supposed to stalk someone with a loaded weapon on him. Zimmerman broke the laws and Trayvon lost his life because Zimmerman didn't do what he was supposed to be doing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46830953/#.T25fPDH2b2Z

~jmo~

Dr.Fessel

04-06-2012, 07:31 PM

Would unzipping a jacket show a gun in a holster that is located inside a waistband?

I have no clue. I don't carry a gun.

But it seems to me that if it's inside the waistband, unzipping the jacket would not have made the gun visible.

Does some of it stick out?

Yes, it sticks up out of the waistband.

Adrienne37

04-06-2012, 07:32 PM

Did anyone hear who it was who claimed GZ's after effects were like "shaken baby sydrome"? I think but am not sure it was his new attorney, Uhlrig. Does anyone have a link? I am furious, as the adoptive parent of a 13 year old who is in a wheelchair, has a feeding tube and the mentality of a five year old, who WAS a shaken baby at two years old. This is disgraceful and I really want to know who said it, I briefly caught it on one of the news stations and darn it did a double take and then it was gone. Can anyone help? I am so PO'd. TY

He was not supposed to be doing any security. He had no duties whatsoever that he was required to partake in as a member of the neighborhood watch program. He was not supposed to be making rounds, he was not supposed to stalking anyone, he was not supposed to follow someone in his car, and sure wasn't supposed to stalk someone with a loaded weapon on him. Zimmerman broke the laws and Trayvon lost his life because Zimmerman didn't do what he was supposed to be doing.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46830953/#.T25fPDH2b2Z

~jmo~

He wasn't making rounds. He was on the way to Target on a "personal errand" when he noticed someone he thought was suspicious. At that point, he called LE, on their non emergency number, and while waiting for LE to show up he kept an eye on the guy.

I think it might be time to have a thread that lists the "facts" and "myths" because the same incorrect myths keep popping up like whackamoles. He wasn't on "patrol".

Concerned Papa

04-06-2012, 07:34 PM

In my earlier posts regarding his interview with Sean Hannity, I had been calling GZ's father Richard. His name is Robert. Thanks for not beating me over the head with that, but I think we owe Robert a big round of thanks because in <modsnip> he told in this interview, for the first time that I'm aware of, we are being told where George's truck was parked when he got out of it to follow TM.

ZIMMERMAN: From where George's vehicle was, there's a sidewalk that goes to the next street over.

ZIMMERMAN: Off of that sidewalk there's another sidewalk that goes between two rows of townhomes. It's my understanding that Trayvon went between the two rows of townhomes, and George was walking down the main sidewalk to see if he could see where Trayvon was going.With that mystery finally solved, let's take a look at what we KNOW <modsnip> for the rest of his story.

A LIE?

How do we know, you ask? Because every one of us HEARD what happened while the events of Robert Zimmerman's tale unfolded. We HEARD, and we HAVE the transcripts to prove it! Take a look at the image below:

http://i941.photobucket.com/albums/ad257/Papa813_bucket/TMRZ.png

(a) We know that GZ got out of his car and began following TM at [2:08] into the 911 call. We've all even heard his door alarm pinging as he exits the vehicle.

(b) We also know that 18 seconds later, at [2:26] we heard:

911 dispatcher:

Are you following him? [2:24]

Zimmerman:

Yeah. [2:25]

911 dispatcher:

We don’t need you to do that. [2:26]Using our documented walking rate for an adult male of 4.4 feet/sec, we can place the distance walked in this 18 seconds by GZ at 79 feet when he was asked/told/advised to discontinue following TM.

(c) Notice what RZ told Sean Hannity at this point:

ZIMMERMAN: When the dispatcher said we know longer need you to do that, and George acknowledged OK. He no longer knew where Trayvon was. So he continued walking down the sidewalk directly in front of him to the next street to get an address.He is saying that GZ continued walking down the sidewalk to the next street AFTER being told to stop following TM which is a distance of 140 feet from point to point. Using our 4.4 feet per second rule, that would put him at the end of the sidewalk at [2:58].

(d) Next Robert Zimmerman tells us this:

He got an address. As he was walking back to his vehicle, there was a sidewalk that goes to his left and Trayvon came from that area where the sidewalks meet. He asked my son if he had a problem, and George said, no, I don't have a problem. Trayvon said, well, you do now. He punched him in the face, broke his nose, knocked him to the sidewalk, and got on him and started beating him.The distance shown above in yellow returning to "where the sidewalks meet" is 97 feet. Our distance/time calculation shows 22 seconds being required to arrive at the point where Robert Zimmerman says TM brutally attacked his son at [3:20].

<modsnip> Go to any 911 recording and listen. Go to any 911 transcript and read:

Zimmerman:

Um, if they come in through the gate, tell them to go straight past the clubhouse and, uh, straight past the clubhouse and make a left and then go past the mailboxes you’ll see my truck. [3:10]

911 dispatcher:

Alright, what address are you parked in front of? [3:21]

Zimmerman:

Um, I don’t know. It’s a cut-through so I don’t know the address. [3:25]GEORGE ZIMMERMAN WAS STILL TALKING TO THE 911 DISPATCHER when Robert Zimmerman says TM brutally attacked and beat his son. In fact, it is then and only then that the dispatcher asked GZ for an address for where he was parked!

GZ is not a security watchman. He had no authority from anyone to follow TM. He was asked by LE to stay with his car to meet the patrol car. He has no authority from the HOA. He had no authority to even question TM. With LE on the phone he could have asked TM where he was going and didn't use that opportunity to do so. He was just a private citizen who was just suppose to call in suspicious behavior...which to GZ is walking in the rain wearing a hoodie. jmo

I'm explaining what GZ could have been doing following TM around the corner and despite what the dispatcher said and I'm not sure of GZ's location when he said it. What law did GZ break going behind the building?

Really I'm probing for probable cause on the part of GZ. What was illegal about GZ going behind the building?

Adrienne37

04-06-2012, 07:36 PM

Jeff Ashton is quoted in this article.

Friends, lawyers wage campaign for Zimmerman..

“The attorneys admit they haven’t met him, and Joe Oliver turns out not to know him very well — there’s a strange distance people around George Zimmerman seem to be having,” said Fordham University professor Paul Levinson, a media critic. “On TV, Robert Zimmerman spouted complete nonsense about his brother. All told, there hasn’t been a strong defense at all.”

Would unzipping a jacket show a gun in a holster that is located inside a waistband?

I have no clue. I don't carry a gun.

But it seems to me that if it's inside the waistband, unzipping the jacket would not have made the gun visible.

Does some of it stick out?

In the lockup video the first officer pulls his shirt part way out, which was neatly tucked in, as he searches GZ's jacket pockets. As they start to walk into the office, GZ appears to ask the second officer to tuck in his shirt which the officer does. IMO the gun was tucked into his waistband between his shirt and his pants. If it were hidden under his shirt he would have never gotten it out and if he did his shirt would have been pulled completely out as well. He was cuffed as soon as LE got there and was still cuff when he reach headquaters. Yes, you would be able to see the gun handle if it were clipped to his pants. jmo

Desdemona

04-06-2012, 07:38 PM

"And interesting that Bonaparte goes so far as to say that Tracy Martin "misconstrued" the conversation with LE where Martin states LE characterized Zimmerman as "squeaky clean"."

Those are the words of Chief Lee, not Norton Bonaparte, Jr.
It was a questionaire to the now former Police Chief. You know, the one that 'temporarily" has stepped down. I don't think it can necessarily be construed as an official position on anything by the City of Sanford.

The PDF is here: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

In case this has not yet been pointed out, Bonaparte is Sanford's City Manager, meaning IMO that he is Chief Lee's 'boss.' The document is dated March 23, and was produced by Bonaparte in conjunction with his March 22 announcement that Chief Lee was temporarily stepping down.

Article about Chief stepping down dated March 22, 2012
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/22/bill-lee-trayvon-martin_n_1373475.html

---

ETA:

Still reading to catch up -- I see that yes, it has been mentioned. TY

Adrienne37

04-06-2012, 07:40 PM

NBC Fires Producer of Misleading Zimmerman Tape..

NBC News has fired a producer who was involved in the production of a misleading segment about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida.

The person was fired on Thursday, according to two people with direct knowledge of the disciplinary action who declined to be identified discussing internal company matters. They also declined to name the fired producer. A spokeswoman for NBC News declined to comment.

In the lockup video the first officer pulls his shirt part way out, which was neatly tucked in, as he searches GZ's jacket pockets. As they start to walk into the office, GZ appears to ask the second officer to tuck in his shirt which the officer does. IMO the gun was tucked into his waistband between his shirt and his pants. If it were hidden under his shirt he would have never gotten it out and if he did his shirt would have been pulled completely out as well. He was cuffed as soon as LE got there and was still cuff when he reach headquaters. Yes, you would be able to see the gun handle if it were clipped to his pants. jmo

If it was between his shirt and pants, it would not have been visible to TM.

And I'm thinking he could have untucked his shirt to get the gun. Perhaps he asked an officer on the scene to tuck his shirt back in (much like the officer in the tape does) and that officer complied too.

The gun had to come out someway. Seems he had to pull his shirt up to get it to me.

JMO

Dr.Fessel

04-06-2012, 07:43 PM

Would unzipping a jacket show a gun in a holster that is located inside a waistband?

I have no clue. I don't carry a gun.

But it seems to me that if it's inside the waistband, unzipping the jacket would not have made the gun visible.

Does some of it stick out?

Here are lots of pictures of waistband holsters and how they are used.

I'm explaining what GZ could have been doing following TM around the corner and despite what the dispatcher said and I'm not sure of GZ's location when he said it. What law did GZ break going behind the building?

Really I'm probing for probable cause on the part of GZ. What was illegal about GZ going behind the building?

I did not say he broke a law. I said he was under no authority to follow TM. No told him to follow, he made that decision on his own knowing he was not authorized to do so. He took it upon himself to take the law into his own hands. LE was on the way and it was LE's job to check TM out.....it was not GZ's job. jmo

Isabelle

04-06-2012, 07:48 PM

GZ's attorney would have sounded more intelligent claiming a coup countercoup injury, but that too would required diagnostics, and GZ probably would have had to go to the hospital.

itsreenw

04-06-2012, 07:49 PM

Still not understanding how going to the store after dinner says anything about his intentions or character. I hope this kind of thinking is not present in the grand jury proceedings.It doesn't. Just like wearing a hoodie and walking doesn't say anything about TM's intention or character!! JMHO

Isabelle

04-06-2012, 07:50 PM

NBC Fires Producer of Misleading Zimmerman Tape..

NBC News has fired a producer who was involved in the production of a misleading segment about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida.

The person was fired on Thursday, according to two people with direct knowledge of the disciplinary action who declined to be identified discussing internal company matters. They also declined to name the fired producer. A spokeswoman for NBC News declined to comment.

I don't know that the editing of the tape should have warranted firing of a person from his job. Hope GZ knows how far reaching his actions have been!

Peliman

04-06-2012, 07:52 PM

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN WAS STILL TALKING TO THE 911 DISPATCHER when Robert Zimmerman says TM brutally attacked and beat his son. In fact, it is then and only then that the dispatcher asked GZ for an address for where he was parked!

Well we just know this isn't true unless the 911 tape was redacted and not released publicly. We also know there was no first confrontation at the truck as the 911 tape indicates unless it's been redacted. I have trouble listening to anything the father of GZ's been saying, <modsnip> JMO

Desdemona

04-06-2012, 07:53 PM

Exactly, it is difficult to read "between the lines" sometimes. I'm thinking that if there is an arrest of GZ it will be because he was told by dispatch to not follow. Not sure he will face murder. still pondering
Just a reminder:

"Okay. We don't need you to do that."

Desdemona

04-06-2012, 07:54 PM

--------

annalia

04-06-2012, 07:55 PM

"And interesting that Bonaparte goes so far as to say that Tracy Martin "misconstrued" the conversation with LE where Martin states LE characterized Zimmerman as "squeaky clean"."

Those are the words of Chief Lee, not Norton Bonaparte, Jr.
It was a questionaire to the now former Police Chief. You know, the one that 'temporarily" has stepped down. I don't think it can necessarily be construed as an official position on anything by the City of Sanford.

The PDF is here: http://www.sanfordfl.gov/investigation/docs/Zimmerman_Martin_shooting.pdf

Correct, they are the words of Chief Lee.

Bonaparte asked Lee the questions, Lee is giving the answers, it doesn't state that it's the city's or Bonaparte's position.

In an effort to continue to be as responsive as possible to the public seeking information on the incident, I have asked Chief Lee to provide answers to some of the most frequently asked questions regarding this matter. Below are his responses. Please understand that since this is still an ongoing investigation, the Police Department is limited in what
information it can publicly release.

Lee is saying that LE did tell Travon's father that GZ was 'squeaky clean', the fact that LE said it is not in dispute. But Lee claims that LE meant that it was GZ who was saying he was squeaky clean. Chief Lee's CYA, in my opinion.

Why was George Zimmerman labeled as “squeaky clean” when in fact he has a prior arrest history?

In one of the initial meetings with the father of the victim the investigator related to him the account that Mr. Zimmerman provided of the incident. At that time the investigator said that Mr. Zimmerman portrayed himself to be “squeaky clean”. We are aware of the background information regarding both individuals involved in this event. We believe Mr. Martin may have misconstrued this information.

JMHO

Isabelle

04-06-2012, 07:55 PM

BBM..But we ALL know GZ did have a problem, and the problem was with TM..We also know GZ had already called the police on TM and GZ knew they were on their way... IIRC He also requested LE call him when they arrived on the premises and he would advise them as to where he was... JMHO

And what other reason would GZ have in telling op to have LE call him when they arrived, except that he knew he wasn't going to be in one place, but would be trailing TM!?

Emeralgem

04-06-2012, 07:57 PM

GZ is not a security watchman. He had no authority from anyone to follow TM. He was asked by LE to stay with his car to meet the patrol car. He has no authority from the HOA. He had no authority to even question TM. With LE on the phone he could have asked TM where he was going and didn't use that opportunity to do so. He was just a private citizen who was just suppose to call in suspicious behavior...which to GZ is walking in the rain wearing a hoodie. jmo

IIRC, Didn't he tell dispatch he is walking toward me, coming to check me out?
Why didn't he at that time when he was on the phone with LE identify himself to TM as being part of the neighborhood watch and ask TM WHY he was there and where was he going? I'm thinking IF a person was up to no good, just knowing GZ was on the phone with LE would have been somewhat of a deterrent for a person who may be planning to commit a crime..JMHO

Emeralgem

04-06-2012, 07:58 PM

and what other reason would gz have in telling op to have le call him when they arrived, except that he knew he wasn't going to be in one place, but would be trailing tm!?

exactly..jmho

Concerned Papa

04-06-2012, 07:58 PM

Well we just know this isn't true unless the 911 tape was redacted and not released publicly. We also know there was no first confrontation at the truck as the 911 tape indicates unless it's been redacted. I have trouble listening to anything the father of GZ's been saying, it's like listening to Cindy Anthony's twin. JMO

I think the entire load of bs is a feeble attempt to get his son off that back sidewalk. I haven't even touched on the other obvious problem with this tale and that's the documented positioning of the body. It wasn't anywhere near where this attack/killing happened in Robert's latest tale.

Peliman

04-06-2012, 08:00 PM

I did not say he broke a law. I said he was under no authority to follow TM. No told him to follow, he made that decision on his own knowing he was not authorized to do so. He took it upon himself to take the law into his own hands. LE was on the way and it was LE's job to check TM out.....it was not GZ's job. jmo

ok understand I'm not a lawyer but I do have had some legal classes and one lesson I'll never forget is what my law professor said one day.

It doesn't have to be fair, it doesn't have to be just, it just has to be legal.

LambChop

04-06-2012, 08:01 PM

The misconception here, is that he doesn't have to have authority to follow someone who is in public, while waiting for LE to show up and investigate.

Where would we be, as a society, if you saw something you thought was suspicious and you don't have a right to keep an eye on the person while the cop you just called is on the way?

The theory is that it's LE's job. Always has been. Private citizens are asked not to interfer. TM was no danger to anyone at the point GZ called it in. TM was not flashing a gun, was doing nothing that indicated he was committing a crime and LE was just sending out a car to check him out. LE would have pulled up, gotten out when they saw TM and asked him politely if he lived there. After that TM would have been on his way. Private citizens are not trained to handle the type of situation GZ created by not listening. He took the law into his own hands. He has no right to do that...it's not an "against the law thing". It's a respect of the law and what you were asked to do by LE which was to stay with his car and wait for LE to get there...they were on their way. GZ took that control away from LE, he put TM's life in danger by doing so. He put everyone else's life in the area in danger because he discharged his weapon. We have to respect the law and let officers do their job. If we don't there will continue to be more people who die for no good reason. I'd say all the people who called 911 understood what LE said in those NWP meetings. Call it in and let us do our job without interference. GZ was interferring. jmo

Peliman

04-06-2012, 08:02 PM

I think the entire load of bs is a feeble attempt to get his son off that back sidewalk. I haven't even touched on the other obvious problem with this tale and that's the documented positioning of the body. It wasn't anywhere near where this attack/killing happened in Robert's latest tale.

I haven't seen the interview with him. I agree he's trying to get his son off and doing a poor job of it too.

LambChop

04-06-2012, 08:06 PM

ok understand I'm not a lawyer but I do have had some legal classes and one lesson I'll never forget is what my law professor said one day.

It doesn't have to be fair, it doesn't have to be just, it just has to be legal.

That is probably not a very good example of what happened here. Seems GZ might have taken the same class. jmo

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 08:08 PM

I wonder if the appointed prosecutor has actually met with George Zimmerman or if he has refused to cooperate now that the case is out of the hands of the Sanford PD? Has Zimmerman's attorney made any statements about him still cooperating with the investigation?

I really, really, really want to see GZ's written police report and recorded statement from the night of the shooting and I also want to see the taped walk through. I want to know what GZ said the night of the shooting and the next day in his own words. I think it's the only way to really map out what GZ did that night?

We have to remember that early on, Zimmerman's father flat out denied that GZ followed Trayvon at all... and comes to find out that he may have actually been on the scene during the walkthrough so was that part of Zimmerman's original statement?? That he never followed Trayvon when we all know he admitted to following Trayvon and can hear him doing it?

I don't understand how they can release a video of GZ in the SPD that night, but can't release his written statement... at least!

mercuriod

04-06-2012, 08:09 PM

I guess I'm not following your thoughts . . .

It seems to me, that Bonaparte is taking issue with Tracy Martin's reporting than an officer called Zimmerman's record "squeaky clean". As in, no one said that to him.

I'm not sure about someone saying it, and someone else not correcting it.

It seems Bonaparte is saying no one said it.

Why, in the conversation where they inform parents that their minor child is dead, would the cop go on in detail that Zimmerman had been charged but went into a youthful offender program many years ago? I would think that wouldn't come up in an initial conversation about a deceased child.

I haven't seen the interview with him. I agree he's trying to get his son off and doing a poor job of it too. The problem with it too is he is saying George told him this stuff. It can be used in court.

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 08:11 PM

The problem with it too is he is saying George told him this stuff. It can be used in court.

I don't find that to be a problem? <modsnip>

I wonder if he has given any kind of investigative interview to the new prosecutor in this case?

Desdemona

04-06-2012, 08:15 PM

Did anyone hear who it was who claimed GZ's after effects were like "shaken baby sydrome"? I think but am not sure it was his new attorney, Uhlrig. Does anyone have a link? I am furious, as the adoptive parent of a 13 year old who is in a wheelchair, has a feeding tube and the mentality of a five year old, who WAS a shaken baby at two years old. This is disgraceful and I really want to know who said it, I briefly caught it on one of the news stations and darn it did a double take and then it was gone. Can anyone help? I am so PO'd. TYSo sorry about your child's injuries and disability.

No, Uhrig absolutely did NOT say or in any way imply that GZ's resulting injury was diagnosable as SBS.

Uhrig said the Florida "Stand Your Ground" statute applied because Zimmerman feared for his life: "One of the points people have said, the force [used against Martin] was too much, even if he broke his nose and slammed his head into the ground.

Many people remember the case of Liam Neeson's wife - fell on a little ski slope, hit her head one time on the ground, and died. We're familiar with the shaken baby syndrome: You shake a baby the brain shakes around inside the skull, you can die.

"When someone is pounding your head on the ground, and you've already had your nose broken, you could be in reasonable fear for great bodily harm - which is what the Florida statute calls for - and if you think you're about to lose your life or be seriously injured like that, you're absolutely entitled to take the necessary action to stop it."

IIRC, Didn't he tell dispatch he is walking toward me, coming to check me out?
Why didn't he at that time when he was on the phone with LE identify himself to TM as being part of the neighborhood watch and ask TM WHY he was there and where was he going? I'm thinking IF a person was up to no good, just knowing GZ was on the phone with LE would have been somewhat of a deterrent for a person who may be planning to commit a crime..JMHO

:seeya: I cannot understand why GZ didn't identify himself immediately, the whole thing could have been cleared up with a little communication. Instead we have a dead 17yr old who was minding his own business on his way home.
This is where I believe GZ decided this situation needed to escalate to give him the ultimate thrill. Calling 911 on kids playing in the street was getting old. I think he fantasized about becoming a hero, and he found the perfect storm at Trayvon's expense. :moo:

LaLaw2000

04-06-2012, 08:19 PM

I do not know about illegal but it certainly calls the report into question. I can only say this: in the department I worked for, I was never once asked to alter a submitted report once it had been accepted, and when I was eventually a supervisor myself, it never once occured to me to ask someone else to do so. I cannot imagine it even coming up, other than in some effort to rewrite history or something. New information comes to light every day during an investigation. That follow up investigation and information has it's own report, and one from every single officer involved.

I can understand relabeling a case file, or ammending a cover letter or something, but actually altering a report?

IN MY OPINION ONLY!

(Note: I said "once accepted." By this I mean that, despite their training, it is not uncommon to see new officers attempt to turn in reports that are complete trash. It is a supervisor's job to ensure that this doesn't happen.)

I understand exactly what you are saying here, Chris. There are plenty reports written in a correctional center/jail every day (my experience and example). It is the documenting of an incident or even an accident, then there are the disciplinary reports. The reports/documentation have to be absolutely correct because these reports are, in fact, considered to be legal documents. They are also used in court.

The concept of the reports are comparable to what LE uses. The standard is the 'Who, What, When, and where.' You will see many reports with lines drawn through the rest of the page. That is done to prevent anything from being added to the report. You cannot use white out or type/write over words. If further information is needed or added, you would have to write an additional report and state the reason why. Then that report would be in addition to the first. BUT you should never alter the original report or add information to it.

*This part of the post is not directed to your post, Chris.

I am just sick at heart about how LE handled Trayvon's case with the exception of the one officer who evaluated the scene and wanted to charge.

At the end of the day, a young boy was killed when he should have been safe walking back to the home he was a guest in. IMO, Trayvon is the true victim here because he was doing nothing wrong. Now he is dead and his parents are devastated.

There should never be a law such as SYG if every single word written in that law is not clear and concise. I believe that we all have a right to defend ourselves against clear and present danger, but not with deadly force if it is just a fistfight. IMO, Trayvon did not have a chance with an ex-bouncer with a weapon.

May true justice prevail.

MOO's

Adrienne37

04-06-2012, 08:21 PM

Trayvon Martin's Uncle Feels Empty Without Him
Ronald Fulton says "if I needed anything, he would be there for me"

Ronald Fulton developed a special bond with Trayvon Martin and says he relied on him every day.

He was permanently changed when he heard his nephew calling out for help in a phone call from the night he was shot and died in Sanford, he says.

“To this day it haunts me. It haunts me and that’s my motivation,” Fulton said. “That’s what motivates me.”

Fulton, who has not traveled to Sanford, said he believes that the grand jury due to convene next week will indict Zimmerman.

“Of course I do,” he said, while emphasizing that attention remain on “the way the police department handled it.”

Did anyone hear who it was who claimed GZ's after effects were like "shaken baby sydrome"? I think but am not sure it was his new attorney, Uhlrig. Does anyone have a link? I am furious, as the adoptive parent of a 13 year old who is in a wheelchair, has a feeding tube and the mentality of a five year old, who WAS a shaken baby at two years old. This is disgraceful and I really want to know who said it, I briefly caught it on one of the news stations and darn it did a double take and then it was gone. Can anyone help? I am so PO'd. TY

SANFORD, Florida (Reuters) - "Shaken Baby Syndrome" was cited on Friday in the defense of George Zimmerman, the Sanford, Florida, man who shot and killed unarmed black teenager Trayvon Martin, in a case that has sparked a widespread public outcry.

Hal Uhrig, a lawyer and former Gainesville, Florida, police officer who recently joined Zimmerman's defense team, cited in a TV interview the brain damage that can seriously injure or kill an infant.

His point, which has been made before, was that Zimmerman contends he shot Martin in self defense and feared for his life after the 17-year-old attacked him and began pounding his head into the concrete pavement of a gated community on a rainy evening in Sanford on February 26.

But Uhrig's choice of words, and use of a recognized sign of child abuse to defend a 28-year-old man who killed a kid, seemed likely to raise more than just a few eyebrows.

"We're familiar with the Shaken Baby Syndrome," said Uhrig on the CBS This Morning program. "You shake a baby, the brain shakes around inside the skull. You can die when someone's pounding your head into the ground."

Adrienne37

04-06-2012, 08:24 PM

Witness: Sanford police uninterested in her account

SANFORD, FL (RNN) - A witness is claiming the Sanford Police showed little interest in what she had seen around the time of the shooting of the unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin, on the night of Feb. 26.

The woman told CNN she witnessed the entire incident, including the shooting. She said she called 911 that night.

If it was between his shirt and pants, it would not have been visible to TM.

And I'm thinking he could have untucked his shirt to get the gun. Perhaps he asked an officer on the scene to tuck his shirt back in (much like the officer in the tape does) and that officer complied too.

The gun had to come out someway. Seems he had to pull his shirt up to get it to me.

JMO

How would GZ have done that if TM attacked him from behind, knocked him down and was banging his head against the cement while pinning him to the ground? You can't clip a gun to your pants if it's under your shirt. You would want it under your jacket but not under your shirt. An unclipped gun would fall down through his pants and he would have lost it half way down the sidewalk. My husband had a clip on his holster to clip to a belt. GZ had no belt so it would have to be clipped to his pants, IMO. jmo

mfcmom

04-06-2012, 08:24 PM

So sorry about your child's injuries and disability.

No, Uhrig absolutely did NOT say or in any way imply that GZ's resulting injury was diagnosable as SBS.

Uhrig said the Florida "Stand Your Ground" statute applied because Zimmerman feared for his life: "One of the points people have said, the force [used against Martin] was too much, even if he broke his nose and slammed his head into the ground.

Many people remember the case of Liam Neeson's wife - fell on a little ski slope, hit her head one time on the ground, and died. We're familiar with the shaken baby syndrome: You shake a baby the brain shakes around inside the skull, you can die.

"When someone is pounding your head on the ground, and you've already had your nose broken, you could be in reasonable fear for great bodily harm - which is what the Florida statute calls for - and if you think you're about to lose your life or be seriously injured like that, you're absolutely entitled to take the necessary action to stop it."

Apologies if already posted. Huffpo has a different take. I believe the inference was there. Also if I offended anyone before I am sorry. I have very strong feelings about defense tactics. JMO

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 08:24 PM

NBC Fires Producer of Misleading Zimmerman Tape..

NBC News has fired a producer who was involved in the production of a misleading segment about the Trayvon Martin case in Florida.

The person was fired on Thursday, according to two people with direct knowledge of the disciplinary action who declined to be identified discussing internal company matters. They also declined to name the fired producer. A spokeswoman for NBC News declined to comment.

I for one am relieved. They don't need someone who purposely misleads their audience. And I don't believe - for a minute - that anyone who has the wits to be able to work in a major media outlet and edit tape doesn't have the wits to know exactly the misleading effect that editing job will have on the viewers.

In this cutthroat business to be considered the most believable media outlet in the market, having an editor who changes tapes to further an agenda - instead of further the truth - can't be tolerated.

He's either really too dumb to know what he's done will have an effect on the perception of truth with their audience, or he knows it and did it on purpose. Both are dangerous to have in the newsroom, I don't know which is more detrimental to the success of NBC.

LaLaw2000

04-06-2012, 08:26 PM

It is a horrible law in its current form. At the point where GZ left his car with a loaded gun and preyed on Tray for no good reason, he became the aggressor/provoker. And I really do not care what happened after that.
The SYG should not be a walking piece of real estate that envelops the aggressor in a mobile protective immune bubble. The SYG victimizes the (dead)victim by not giving the victim any human/civil rights and/or any due process in a court.
All IMO.

I certainly agree with you on this, rotterdam. I, too, believe that GZ did become the aggressor.

This SYG law needs to be rewritten in plain English if kept at all. There are just too many holes in it, IMO.

MOO

Desdemona

04-06-2012, 08:28 PM

GZ's attorney would have sounded more intelligent claiming a coup countercoup injury, but that too would required diagnostics, and GZ probably would have had to go to the hospital.Just to clarify, Uhrig did not "claim" any specific type of injury. As examples, he brought up two types of serious/fatal brain injury, one being closed-head injury due to a seemingly harmless blow, and one being SBS, in asserting that GZ had every reason to to fear serious injury or death when his head was being slammed into the ground, and every right to protect himself.

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 08:29 PM

You know if GZ is arrested for at least manslaughter they are going to try and get everything he said the night of the shooting and the walk-through the next day thrown out? They're going to blame SPD, EMS, etc... for not getting him medical attention? They are going to say he could not legally, with his severe head injury, sign a waiver so it is invalid. Then we'll get into the whole Miranda Warning (which hopefully they gave him) and how even if he was read his Miranda Warning, his severe head injury prevented him from fully understanding what he was agreeing to.

Also, why in the world wouldn't GZ want to release the medical report showing what his actual injuries were? If I was GZ, I would have released that weeks ago to show just how bad my injuries were. Especially a broken nose and a gash that would have required stitches had it not started to heal? I wonder if he went to a family doctor or if he went to the ER?

I'm still puzzled why they are withholding the autopsy report? I don't understand that? Did Trayvon have injuries that they don't want released to the public yet?

Another question I have would be, when Police took the gun from Zimmerman, did they have gloves on? We all seen how the one officer totally disregarded basic safety measures when frisking Zimmerman, but what about when they took the gun? If Trayvon was going to the gun, his fingerprints should be on the gun? What part of the gun were Trayvon's fingerprints? If it was on the actual nozzle (is that the name for where the bullet comes out) I think it would mean Trayvon was trying to get the gun away from pointing at him. If the fingerprints were on the handle (where you hold it and the trigger is?) then it would go with Trayvon going for the gun while in Zimmerman's waistband?

So many questions still! It's driving me insane.

MOO

i.b.nora

04-06-2012, 08:31 PM

"But Uhrig's choice of words, and use of a recognized sign of child abuse to defend a 28-year-old man who killed a kid, seemed likely to raise more than just a few eyebrows.

"We're familiar with the Shaken Baby Syndrome," said Uhrig on the CBS This Morning program. "You shake a baby, the brain shakes around inside the skull. You can die when someone's pounding your head into the ground.""

SANFORD, FL (RNN) - A witness is claiming the Sanford Police showed little interest in what she had seen around the time of the shooting of the unarmed teenager, Trayvon Martin, on the night of Feb. 26.

The woman told CNN she witnessed the entire incident, including the shooting. She said she called 911 that night.

I wish we had at least a name for this witness or a idea of what she saw? Is it MC? Or would it be the woman from the call where we heard the actual shot fired?

Adrienne37

04-06-2012, 08:34 PM

Just to clarify, Uhrig did not "claim" any specific type of injury. As examples, he brought up two types of serious/fatal brain injury, one being closed-head injury due to a seemingly harmless blow, and one being SBS, in asserting that GZ had every reason to to fear serious injury or death when his head was being slammed into the ground, and every right to protect himself.

Again if these injuries were so severe and likely to cause you death possibly within a few days, why was he not treated in the ER the night of Trayvon's murder? His brother indicated that he was barely conscious, one step away from being spoon fed and wearing diapers. I would love a very reasonable explanation as to why he didn't go to the hospital.

~jmo~

vlpate

04-06-2012, 08:34 PM

I for one am relieved. They don't need someone who purposely misleads their audience. And I don't believe - for a minute - that anyone who has the wits to be able to work in a major media outlet and edit tape doesn't have the wits to know exactly the misleading effect that editing job will have on the viewers.

In this cutthroat business to be considered the most believable media outlet in the market, having an editor who changes tapes to further an agenda - instead of further the truth - can't be tolerated.

He's either really too dumb to know what he's done will have an effect on the perception of truth with their audience, or he knows it and did it on purpose. Both are dangerous to have in the newsroom, I don't know which is more detrimental to the success of NBC.
I sort of have a different take on it JennaT - don't you think it's possible this editor is just the fall guy? It would be hard to believe a conglomerate as big as NBC doesn't have a check and balance system. Firing this guy is showing they took a stand, problem solved - probably a nice severance package. He'll be editing at FOX News next week. JMO :):moo::twocents:

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 08:35 PM

You know if GZ is arrested for at least manslaughter they are going to try and get everything he said the night of the shooting and the walk-through the next day thrown out? They're going to blame SPD, EMS, etc... for not getting him medical attention? They are going to say he could not legally, with his severe head injury, sign a waiver so it is invalid. Then we'll get into the whole Miranda Warning (which hopefully they gave him) and how even if he was read his Miranda Warning, his severe head injury prevented him from fully understanding what he was agreeing to.

Also, why in the world wouldn't GZ want to release the medical report showing what his actual injuries were? If I was GZ, I would have released that weeks ago to show just how bad my injuries were. Especially a broken nose and a gash that would have required stitches had it not started to heal? I wonder if he went to a family doctor or if he went to the ER?

I'm still puzzled why they are withholding the autopsy report? I don't understand that? Did Trayvon have injuries that they don't want released to the public yet?

Another question I have would be, when Police took the gun from Zimmerman, did they have gloves on? We all seen how the one officer totally disregarded basic safety measures when frisking Zimmerman, but what about when they took the gun? If Trayvon was going to the gun, his fingerprints should be on the gun? What part of the gun were Trayvon's fingerprints? If it was on the actual nozzle (is that the name for where the bullet comes out) I think it would mean Trayvon was trying to get the gun away from pointing at him. If the fingerprints were on the handle (where you hold it and the trigger is?) then it would go with Trayvon going for the gun while in Zimmerman's waistband?

So many questions still! It's driving me insane.

MOO

I don't think the autopsy report is complete. The cause of death is obvious, but they won't have the tox report back, I don't think. Those take forever.

Adrienne37

04-06-2012, 08:35 PM

I wish we had at least a name for this witness or a idea of what she saw? Is it MC? Or would it be the woman from the call where we heard the actual shot fired?

I have no clue Lola. Hopefully we will get a little bit more information from her.

LambChop

04-06-2012, 08:35 PM

w
The misconception here, is that he doesn't have to have authority to follow someone who is in public, while waiting for LE to show up and investigate.

Where would we be, as a society, if you saw something you thought was suspicious and you don't have a right to keep an eye on the person while the cop you just called is on the way?

Once you have called in a complaint of a suspect it is official police business. If they tell you to stay with your car they mean it or they would not tell you to do so. No one asked GZ to follow, he knew full well he was not suppose to because he set up the NW Program himself. He knew what to do and disregarded the very rules of the program. He knew it was dangerous to follow someone he had already decided was a suspect. Whatever was his motivation???? His car was parked in front of a home that faced the street with a house number on it but he ignored LE's request to return to his car and kept walking to the next street (according to his Dad).

LE can't do their job with people who take it upon themselves to interfer. And once that call is placed it is official police business your obligation ends. All LE did was ask if he wanted to meet the cruiser and where would he be. He never said I'm planning on continued to follow this dude. He owed LE the consideration as a private citizen to do as they had asked him to do. Go back to your car, you don't need to follow, we have a car on the way, please meet us at the mailboxes, etc. on and on. It's all pretty clear.

If everyone decided to take matter into their own hands it would be a lawless society. Two things that put LE at a disadvantage. GZ did not tell them he fully intended to keep following TM and that he was armed with a gun. Two very important facts that LE should have been aware of.

Once you call it in to LE, let them do their job, please. GZ owed TM that consideration. Now TM is dead and it did not have to turn out that way. jmo

saguaro

04-06-2012, 08:37 PM

I don't know that the editing of the tape should have warranted firing of a person from his job. Hope GZ knows how far reaching his actions have been!

Their job is to report the news not create it.

imamaze

04-06-2012, 08:40 PM

w

Once you have called in a complaint of a suspect it is official police business. If they tell you to stay with your car they mean it or they would not tell you to do so. No one asked GZ to follow, he knew full well he was not suppose to because he set up the NW Program himself. He knew what to do and disregarded the very rules of the program. He knew it was dangerous to follow someone he had already decided was a suspect. What ever was his motivation???? His car was parked in front of a home that faced the street with a house number on it but he ignored LE's request to return to his car and kept walking to the next street (according to his Dad).

LE can't do their job with people who take it upon themselves to interfer. And once that call is place it is official police business your obligation ends. All LE did was ask if he wanted to meet the cruiser and where would he be. He never said I'm planning on continued to follow this dude. He owed LE the consideration as a private citizen to do as they had asked him to do. Go back to your car, you don't need to follow, we have a car on the way, please meet us at the mailboxes, etc. on and on. It's all pretty clear.

If everyone decided to take matter into their own hands it would be would have a lawless society.

Once you call it in to LE, let them do their job, please. GZ owed TM that consideration. Now TM is dead and it did not have to turn out that way. jmo

BBM...

This is how I see it to LambChop.

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 08:40 PM

I sort of have a different take on it JennaT - don't you think it's possible this editor is just the fall guy? It would be hard to believe a conglomerate as big as NBC doesn't have a check and balance system. Firing this guy is showing they took a stand, problem solved - probably a nice severance package. He'll be editing at FOX News next week. JMO :):moo::twocents:

I doubt, having edited that tape in a way that shows a clear bias toward Trayvon, he will ever get an interview at FOX. ;D

But yes, maybe he was a fall guy in a large group of employees who all were working to taint the truth. Telling only one side of a story is something that's common at this point in the media, and we've grown to expect and predict one sided MSM - God rest Walter Chronkite's soul - but to actually change an audio tape of a recorded phone call to make the caller appear racist is beyond that practice of only telling one side.

And truthfully, depending on what market you're listening to, you need to be aware of their bias so you can filter that way. That's just reality. But to actually present a doctored audio tape is so disrespectful of their viewers.

Nobody in this, on either side, wants to be lied to or given evidence that has been altered. We all want the truth.

*tap tap* There. Off my soap box now. ;D

jaded cat

04-06-2012, 08:41 PM

By that token TM had an incident in which he had jewlery that wasn't his and a burglary tool...yet that is clearly disregarded when it is relevant to whether he may have been casing homes. That's considered "bashing" though. TM had a criminal background as well, but with no convictions.

The question would be if TM had those items on him at the time of the shooting. The answer is no, he didn't. It's irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Kimberlyd125

04-06-2012, 08:42 PM

How would GZ have done that if TM attacked him from behind, knocked him down and was banging his head against the cement while pinning him to the ground? You can't clip a gun to your pants if it's under your shirt. You would want it under your jacket but not under your shirt. An unclipped gun would fall down through his pants and he would have lost it half way down the sidewalk. My husband had a clip on his holster to clip to a belt. GZ had no belt so it would have to be clipped to his pants, IMO. jmo

I was jumping off of your post where you said...
"IMO the gun was tucked into his waistband between his shirt and his pants".

I guess I thought you meant that his shirt was tucked over the gun and into his pants.

ynotdivein

04-06-2012, 08:44 PM

Bumping this reminder.

Seems that many here would like to know if GZ had been drinking that night.

Also seems that many here would like to know if TM had done anything other than walk straight to the store and back that night.

AFAICT, we have insufficient evidence at this time to prove anything conclusive about either of these questions.

Until we do, let's move the discussion on to more productive lines of sleuthing.

This post lands at random, and :tyou:

TonyGatto

04-06-2012, 08:45 PM

Witness was just interviewed on CNN -- says she was on the phone with 911 when shot went off and held phone up to screen. Says she was certain GZ was on top and entire altercation was at least 4 feet away from concrete. Her attorney says SA investigators did not do a very complete interview -- only 15 minutes. This witness had been interviewed before but this was more complete.

RANCH

04-06-2012, 08:46 PM

I sort of have a different take on it JennaT - don't you think it's possible this editor is just the fall guy? It would be hard to believe a conglomerate as big as NBC doesn't have a check and balance system. Firing this guy is showing they took a stand, problem solved - probably a nice severance package. He'll be editing at FOX News next week. JMO :):moo::twocents:
You have a point there vlpate. Why didn't the script editor, senior producer or legal department catch the "mistake".

Citing an anonymous network executive, Reuters reported that “the ‘Today’ show’s editorial control policies — which include a script editor, senior producer oversight and in most cases legal and standards department reviews of material to be broadcast — missed the selective editing of the call.”

Well, I have listened to that slowed down tape of the screaming on and off for the last 3 hours. I can finally hear the words "somebody help". Its tangled in the callers words right after the dispatchers says her peace.
I am coming down off the fence now.

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 08:48 PM

Witness was just interviewed on CNN -- says she was on the phone with 911 when shot went off and held phone up to screen. Says she was certain GZ was on top and entire altercation was at least 4 feet away from concrete. Her attorney says SA investigators did not do a very complete interview -- only 15 minutes. This witness had been interviewed before but this was more complete.

A witness has an attorney? ??

I'm sorry to be dense, but what does that mean "and held phone up to screen". Does that mean she photographed what she saw with her phone?

It strains the imagination to think of how GZ got injuries to the back of his head when he was on top during a fight. Also it strains the imagination to think how Trayvon would be losing a hand to hand fight with GZ.

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 08:49 PM

I have another question?? The officer's who brought Zimmerman to the station... would they have had the gun or would that have been left with the detectives on the scene?

I would love to see the chain of custody that gun went through that night? Fingerprints should be very easy to obtain since LE got there so quick. Zimmerman and Trayvon's fingerprints should be on the gun.

MOO

uvamerica

04-06-2012, 08:49 PM

w

Once you have called in a complaint of a suspect it is official police business. If they tell you to stay with your car they mean it or they would not tell you to do so. No one asked GZ to follow, he knew full well he was not suppose to because he set up the NW Program himself. He knew what to do and disregarded the very rules of the program. He knew it was dangerous to follow someone he had already decided was a suspect. Whatever was his motivation???? His car was parked in front of a home that faced the street with a house number on it but he ignored LE's request to return to his car and kept walking to the next street (according to his Dad).

LE can't do their job with people who take it upon themselves to interfer. And once that call is placed it is official police business your obligation ends. All LE did was ask if he wanted to meet the cruiser and where would he be. He never said I'm planning on continued to follow this dude. He owed LE the consideration as a private citizen to do as they had asked him to do. Go back to your car, you don't need to follow, we have a car on the way, please meet us at the mailboxes, etc. on and on. It's all pretty clear.

If everyone decided to take matter into their own hands it would be a lawless society. Two things that put LE at a disadvantage. GZ did not tell them he fully intended to keep following TM and that he was armed with a gun. Two very important facts that LE should have been aware of.

Once you call it in to LE, let them do their job, please. GZ owed TM that consideration. Now TM is dead and it did not have to turn out that way. jmo

:tyou: :goodpost:

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 08:50 PM

A witness has an attorney? ??

I'm sorry to be dense, but what does that mean "and held phone up to screen". Does that mean she photographed what she saw with her phone?

If I was a witness to a murder that has become this high profile, I would get an attorney too. No one wants to get Kronked!

katydid23

04-06-2012, 08:50 PM

I have no clue Lola. Hopefully we will get a little bit more information from her.

She was just interviewed by Ashley Banfield on CNN, and she did not have anything much new to say at all.
She was in shadows, in profile with one of those audio-morphing thingies, so it was kind of distracting.
But essentially she said it was too dark for her to see much, but she thinks maybe the bigger man was on top.
It didn't sound like she saw anything new or earth shattering, imo.

She did say there was a long argument she listened to.

She said that the lead investigator came and interviewed her that night and recorded her testimony.

And she said that later she went to a community meeting where the same investigator spoke to the residents and passed out his cards in case they had any more info. She says that she called and never got a return call. That seems to be her main complaint.

Mark Geragos says that this witness actually helps the defendant.

kimpage

04-06-2012, 08:50 PM

Witness was just interviewed on CNN -- says she was on the phone with 911 when shot went off and held phone up to screen. Says she was certain GZ was on top and entire altercation was at least 4 feet away from concrete. Her attorney says SA investigators did not do a very complete interview -- only 15 minutes. This witness had been interviewed before but this was more complete.
So they questioned her more extensively??????????

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 08:51 PM

Witness was just interviewed on CNN -- says she was on the phone with 911 when shot went off and held phone up to screen. Says she was certain GZ was on top and entire altercation was at least 4 feet away from concrete. Her attorney says SA investigators did not do a very complete interview -- only 15 minutes. This witness had been interviewed before but this was more complete.

Was it MC? Mary Crucher (sp??). Or was it a new witness... the girl from the call where we actually heard the shot? I believe her boyfriend's name was Jeremy (from the call)?

JeannaT

04-06-2012, 08:52 PM

w

Once you have called in a complaint of a suspect it is official police business. If they tell you to stay with your car they mean it or they would not tell you to do so. No one asked GZ to follow, he knew full well he was not suppose to because he set up the NW Program himself. He knew what to do and disregarded the very rules of the program. He knew it was dangerous to follow someone he had already decided was a suspect. Whatever was his motivation???? His car was parked in front of a home that faced the street with a house number on it but he ignored LE's request to return to his car and kept walking to the next street (according to his Dad).

LE can't do their job with people who take it upon themselves to interfer. And once that call is placed it is official police business your obligation ends. All LE did was ask if he wanted to meet the cruiser and where would he be. He never said I'm planning on continued to follow this dude. He owed LE the consideration as a private citizen to do as they had asked him to do. Go back to your car, you don't need to follow, we have a car on the way, please meet us at the mailboxes, etc. on and on. It's all pretty clear.

If everyone decided to take matter into their own hands it would be a lawless society. Two things that put LE at a disadvantage. GZ did not tell them he fully intended to keep following TM and that he was armed with a gun. Two very important facts that LE should have been aware of.

Once you call it in to LE, let them do their job, please. GZ owed TM that consideration. Now TM is dead and it did not have to turn out that way. jmo

No. It's been made clear that it's a myth that a dispatcher has the right to tell someone what to do. GZ was under no obligation whatsoever to follow the dispatchers suggestion.

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 08:53 PM

She was just interviewed by Ashley Banfield on CNN, and she did not have anything much new to say at all.
She was in shadows, in profile with one of those audio-morphing thingies, so it was kind of distracting.
But essentially she said it was too dark for her to see much, but she thinks maybe the bigger man was on top.
It didn't sound like she saw anything new or earth shattering, imo.

She said that the lead investigator came and interviewed her that night and recorded her testimony.

And she said that later she went to a community meeting where the same investigator spoke to the residents and passed out his cards in case they had any more info. She says that she called and never got a return call. That seems to be her main complaint.

Okay, so it wasn't MC! MC would have no problem showing her face, imo. She has numerous times already.

To me... it is really concerning that this is the 2nd witness who says that LE never called her back?

LambChop

04-06-2012, 08:53 PM

I have no clue Lola. Hopefully we will get a little bit more information from her.

When they know the cause of death why would a drug test be necessary? TM broke no laws and it was not considered a "drug" case. jmo

chefmom

04-06-2012, 08:54 PM

Huffpo has a different take. I believe the inference was there. Also if I offended anyone before I am sorry. I have very strong feelings about defense tactics. JMO

(((hugs))) For you and your child!

:blowkiss:

TonyGatto

04-06-2012, 08:54 PM

A witness has an attorney? ??

I'm sorry to be dense, but what does that mean "and held phone up to screen". Does that mean she photographed what she saw with her phone?

It strains the imagination to think of how GZ got injuries to the back of his head when he was on top during a fight. Also it strains the imagination to think how Trayvon would be losing a hand to hand fight with GZ.

Yes the witness has an attorney which is not out of the ordinary. She said that at some point she said to police why don't you just listen and held the phone up to the screen -- as a microphone -- so police could listen to the raw audio as it was happening. She also says the verbal argument that preceded the shot was between an older man and a younger man and that the older man was louder and more forceful.

TonyGatto

04-06-2012, 08:56 PM

Was it MC? Mary Crucher (sp??). Or was it a new witness... the girl from the call where we actually heard the shot? I believe her boyfriend's name was Jeremy (from the call)?

My take is that this is not the woman who is with the man on the 911 call which has been released. Which brings up the point -- why has LE released certain 911 tapes and not others?

katydid23

04-06-2012, 08:58 PM

Witness was just interviewed on CNN -- says she was on the phone with 911 when shot went off and held phone up to screen. Says she was certain GZ was on top and entire altercation was at least 4 feet away from concrete. Her attorney says SA investigators did not do a very complete interview -- only 15 minutes. This witness had been interviewed before but this was more complete.

I heard it a bit different. I heard her say a few times that it was very dark and she could not be sure, but she thought the bigger man was on top of ' the little boy.'

Her attorney was talking about the FOLLOW UP interview. That one was only 15 minutes. But her initial interview that evening was recorded and she told her entire story.

Mark Geragos was on after the interview and said he thought she actually helped the defense. She talked about hearing very long and loud argument which went on for awhile.

TonyGatto

04-06-2012, 08:59 PM

So they questioned her more extensively??????????

Witness's attorney said to Ashley Banfield: The interview you just did with her was much more thorough than the police did with her. The witness also said that investigator said to her that night -- if it's any consolation -- the person who was screaming is still alive.

Dr.Fessel

04-06-2012, 08:59 PM

I have another question?? The officer's who brought Zimmerman to the station... would they have had the gun or would that have been left with the detectives on the scene?

I would love to see the chain of custody that gun went through that night? Fingerprints should be very easy to obtain since LE got there so quick. Zimmerman and Trayvon's fingerprints should be on the gun.

MOO

I never saw him with the gun at the station.

chefmom

04-06-2012, 08:59 PM

I for one am relieved. They don't need someone who purposely misleads their audience. And I don't believe - for a minute - that anyone who has the wits to be able to work in a major media outlet and edit tape doesn't have the wits to know exactly the misleading effect that editing job will have on the viewers.

In this cutthroat business to be considered the most believable media outlet in the market, having an editor who changes tapes to further an agenda - instead of further the truth - can't be tolerated.

He's either really too dumb to know what he's done will have an effect on the perception of truth with their audience, or he knows it and did it on purpose. Both are dangerous to have in the newsroom, I don't know which is more detrimental to the success of NBC.

Totally agree with this post! It is one thing when, for sake of time, editting is done to hit high points of an interview, call, etc. It is quite another, in a case such as this, to splice together bits and pieces that will only serve to inflame the situation more. IMO, this is exactly what this person did. They cherry picked what they wanted to be heard, put it together, and came up with a string that made for a bad picture. I want justice for Trayvon, but I do not want it to be manufactured. JMO

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 09:00 PM

My take is that this is not the woman who is with the man on the 911 call which has been released. Which brings up the point -- why has LE released certain 911 tapes and not others?

There was mumblings about other 911 tapes that haven't been released? I just didn't believe it? Has Trayvon's family gotten to listen to any unreleased 911 calls, if they exist? I know I would be extremely mad if I had finally gotten the calls released only to know that there were more out there that weren't released! This all started because they wanted to hear the 911 calls and to think they withheld some?? What reason would that be?

MOO

TonyGatto

04-06-2012, 09:02 PM

I heard it a bit different. I heard her say a few times that it was very dark and she could not be sure, but she thought the bigger man was on top of ' the little boy.'

Her attorney was talking about the FOLLOW UP interview. That one was only 15 minutes. But her initial interview that evening was recorded and she told her entire story.

Mark Geragos was on after the interview and said he thought she actually helped the defense. She talked about hearing very long and loud argument which went on for awhile.

You're right. The fifteen minute interview was the more recent one -- DONE BY INVESTIGATORS FROM THE SPECIALLY APPOINTED SA.

beach

04-06-2012, 09:02 PM

No. It's been made clear that it's a myth that a dispatcher has the right to tell someone what to do. GZ was under no obligation whatsoever to follow the dispatchers suggestion.

This argument always cracks me up. You are correct the dispatcher does not have the authority to ORDER him to stay in the car. However, they are trained by LE on how to handle volatile situations exactly like this. I don't care what brush you try to paint this with, at the very least Zimmerman acted irresponsibly by refusing to follow the dispatcher's trained response.

If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, Trayvon would not be dead NOR would Zimmerman be facing the backlash he is now.

That is a simple FACT.

kimpage

04-06-2012, 09:02 PM

Saw previews fo Piers Morgan...Steven Segal is gonna be on and said if dispatch told GZ we dont need you to follow and if it was in his jurisdiction he would arrest GZ.

Dr.Fessel

04-06-2012, 09:03 PM

Witness's attorney said to Ashley Banfield: The interview you just did with her was much more thorough than the police did with her. The witness also said that investigator said to her that night -- if it's any consolation -- the person who was screaming is still alive. IMO there was a lot of those kinds of statements being made that night. I imagine the next one heard "if it is any consolation, the person with the red sweater is still alive". IMO

Desdemona

04-06-2012, 09:03 PM

Huffpo has a different take. I believe the inference was there. Also if I offended anyone before I am sorry. I have very strong feelings about defense tactics. JMOIf the Huffington Post has deliberately stated or implied falsely that Uhrig claimed GZ to be suffering from SBS, either before or after the head injury he sustained that night, that is IMO highly irresponsible and wrong, since Uhrig clearly said no such thing.

Here is the Huffington Post article for anyone who cares to read it line for line:

BTW, I linked the actual CBS video of Uhrig's comments upthread, because I understood you to say you heard/saw it on TV. Sorry if I got that wrong.

Again, here is the video, with Uhrig's remarks beginning at 3:43:
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505263_162-57410388/zimmerman-lawyer-client-convicted-by-media/

LolaMoon08

04-06-2012, 09:04 PM

I never saw him with the gun at the station.

I know. I didn't either. So the gun had to have been left at the scene with detectives, correct? I figure it was immediately taken from Zimmerman's possession (hopefully with gloves on and placed in an evidence bag right away)? Would Zimmerman placing the gun back in the holster smear any fingerprints on the gun?

chefmom

04-06-2012, 09:05 PM

You know if GZ is arrested for at least manslaughter they are going to try and get everything he said the night of the shooting and the walk-through the next day thrown out? They're going to blame SPD, EMS, etc... for not getting him medical attention? They are going to say he could not legally, with his severe head injury, sign a waiver so it is invalid. Then we'll get into the whole Miranda Warning (which hopefully they gave him) and how even if he was read his Miranda Warning, his severe head injury prevented him from fully understanding what he was agreeing to.

Also, why in the world wouldn't GZ want to release the medical report showing what his actual injuries were? If I was GZ, I would have released that weeks ago to show just how bad my injuries were. Especially a broken nose and a gash that would have required stitches had it not started to heal? I wonder if he went to a family doctor or if he went to the ER?

I'm still puzzled why they are withholding the autopsy report? I don't understand that? Did Trayvon have injuries that they don't want released to the public yet?

Another question I have would be, when Police took the gun from Zimmerman, did they have gloves on? We all seen how the one officer totally disregarded basic safety measures when frisking Zimmerman, but what about when they took the gun? If Trayvon was going to the gun, his fingerprints should be on the gun? What part of the gun were Trayvon's fingerprints? If it was on the actual nozzle (is that the name for where the bullet comes out) I think it would mean Trayvon was trying to get the gun away from pointing at him. If the fingerprints were on the handle (where you hold it and the trigger is?) then it would go with Trayvon going for the gun while in Zimmerman's waistband?

So many questions still! It's driving me insane.

MOO

BBM

ITA! If I were in GZ's shoes, I would have released any info or pictures that backed up my claim of injuries. I would rather lay all my cards on the table, so to speak, than have half the country think I am a murderer/racist. It would seem like the easiest way to put the questions to rest. JMO

LambChop

04-06-2012, 09:06 PM

No. It's been made clear that it's a myth that a dispatcher has the right to tell someone what to do. GZ was under no obligation whatsoever to follow the dispatchers suggestion.

FACT: Once you call LE with a complaint of a suspect it becomes official police business. We have all read the report and the time GZ called it in. We all hear the tape of GZ talking to LE. Regardless of what GZ does, went home, went to the store, waited for LE, his obligation ended when he called LE. It's not a what's legal, what's not. It's legally police business because they were sending out a car to investigate. They NEVER gave GZ permission to investigate on his own...it is their job. Did we hear dispatch tell GZ, hey, yeah man, just do that, just follow this guy because he might get away? GZ knew exactly what he was doing, that is why he never told LE he had a gun and lead them to believe he was headed back to his truck by saying, "okay."

I can tell you one thing. It is quite obvious that many people do not understand what is expected of them AFTER they make that call. "We don't need you to do that" is a polite way of say....there's a car on the way, it's our job to investigate this situation and if we need you we will call you, or you can wait in your car until the patrol car gets there. It was never an open invitation, nor did GZ ever get any blessings from LE to follow TM. Other than issuing him a direct order to wait I doubt if anything would have stopped GZ from following TM because he didn't want another one "to get away." Because GZ used extremely poor judgment someone is dead. jmo

LambChop

04-06-2012, 09:08 PM

I know. I didn't either. So the gun had to have been left at the scene with detectives, correct? I figure it was immediately taken from Zimmerman's possession (hopefully with gloves on and placed in an evidence bag right away)? Would Zimmerman placing the gun back in the holster smear any fingerprints on the gun?

It's in the police report. Officer Smith disarmed him by taking the gun from GZ's waistband and then cuff him. jmo

joypath

04-06-2012, 09:08 PM

When they know the cause of death why would a drug test be necessary? TM broke no laws and it was not considered a "drug" case. jmo

Performing drug screens on decedents involved in violent actions has become routine in many jurisdictions, usually only doing blood & urine sampling rather than "other" organ tissue testing as one would perform in "unknown" CODs.

Also, IIRC, the members of the SPD REQUESTED IT be done on the gunshot fatality. (sorry no link, just remember this from previous discussions on this forum)

JMO,JME

chefmom

04-06-2012, 09:09 PM

This argument always cracks me up. You are correct the dispatcher does not have the authority to ORDER him to stay in the car. However, they are trained by LE on how to handle volatile situations exactly like this. I don't care what brush you try to paint this with, at the very least Zimmerman acted irresponsibly by refusing to follow the dispatcher's trained response.

If Zimmerman had stayed in his car, Trayvon would not be dead NOR would Zimmerman be facing the backlash he is now.

That is a simple FACT.

Well stated! And, might I add that if one calls LE for assistance, one should follow the instructions given to them by LE in order to facilitate an orderly resolution to the problem they need help with. :blushing: